THE 


THEOLOGY 


OF  THE 


NEW    TESTAMENT, 

A   MANUAL 

FOR 

UNIVERSITY    INSTRUCTION    AND    PRIVATE    STUDY, 


BY 


J/J/VAN  OOSTERZEE, 

PROFESSOR    IN    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    UTRECHT, 


TRANSLATED  FKOM  THE  DUTCH,  BY 


GEORGE  E.   DAY, 

PROFESSOR   IN   THE   DIVINITY    SCHOOL   OF   TALE   COLLEGE, 


Qr"  THE. 

UNIVERSITY    I 


NEW   HAVEN: 

JUDD    &    WHITE. 

ANDOVER:   WARREN  F.  DRAPER. 

PHILADELPHIA  :  SMITH,  ENGLISH  &  CO. 

1871. 


Printed  by 

TUTTLE,  MOREHOUSE  &  TAYLOB, 
221  State  St.,  New  Haven,  Conn. 


.    it)  W,  X  <^^yi 


101794 


INTRODUCTORY    NOTE 

BY  THE   TRANSLATOR, 


THE  following  manual  was  prepared  by  the  author  for  the  use  of  his  classes  in 
the  University  of  Utrecht,  as  an  introduction  to  the  comparatively  new  science  of 
Biblical  Theology.  To  each  section  are  appended  a  list  of  works  which  may  be 
consulted,  and  also  •'  questions  for  consideration  "  designed  to  stimulate  arid  guide 
in  further  investigation.  The  present  translation  has  been  prepared  for  American 
students  in  Theology,  whether  in  the  theological  school  or  engaged  in  the  active 
duties  of  the  ministry,  desirous  of  finding  in  a  compressed  form  an  able  historical 
exhibition  of  the  doctrinal  teachings  of  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles,  resting  upon 
the  established  results  of  the  most  recent  critical  and  exegetical  study  of  the 
Scriptures,  in  the  confident  belief  that  they  will  not  be  disappointed.  The  cau- 
tious steps  with  which  the  author  proceeds  in  conducting  his  examination,  his 
frank  admission  of  whatever  the  truth  seems  to  require,  and  the  manifest  candor 
he  everywhere  exhibits,  impart  increased  force  to  the  firm  conclusions  at  which  he 
arrives,  and  will  certainly  render  his  work  helpful  to  those  whose  confidence  in 
systems  of  dogmatic  theology  may  have  been  in  any  way  weakened.  It  must  not 
be  forgotten,  however,  that,  since  every  position  taken  is  claimed  to  be  supported 
by  some  express  or  implied  statement  in  the  Xew  Testament  record,  a  constant 
reference  to  each  passage  cited  is  essential  to  the  reader^s  intelligent  conviction  of  the 
validity  of  the  process  and  the  justness  of  the  final  result.  On  one  or  two  points 
American  students,  in  common  with  the  translator,  will  not  probably  be  prepared 
to  accept  the  author's  views,  or  would  somewhat  modify  his  form  of  statement, 
but  the  Apostolic  rule  here  applies- — ' Prove  all  things;  hold  fast  that  which  is 
good.' 

In  the  latter  part  of  this  work  I  have  been  happy  to  avail  myself  of  the  English 
translation  by  Mr.  M.  J.  Evans  (London,  1870),  which  appeared  after  the  larger 
portion  of  the  present  volume  had  been  struck  off.  This  I  have  compared  with 
the  original  and  carefully  revised.  The  German  translation,  also  (Barmen,  1869), 
has  been  of  service,  although  occasionally  defective  and  erroneous.  A  few  judi- 
cious notes  extracted  by  Mr.  Evans  from  Calvin  have  been  retained,  and  are  inui- 


iy  INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. 

cated  by  his  initials.  The  table  of  contents  has  been  extended  so  as  to  present  a 
comprehensive  synopsis,  in  the  hope  that  it  will  be  found  useful  in  review.  For 
the  sake  of  convenience,  the  titles  of  the  Dutch  and  German  books  cited  have  been 
generally  given  in  English,  but  the  original  language  in  which  any  one  appeared 
may  be  known  either  from  the  place  of  publication,  or  from  the  mode  in  which  the 
page  is  cited — bL  in  the  former,  and  S.  in  the  latter.  "Where  no  translation  is 
known  to  exist,  the  title  is  inclosed  between  quotation  marks. 

"Within  a  few  months  two  valuable  contributions  to  the  English  literature  in  this 
department  have  been  made,  the  one  a  translation  of  Schmid's  Biblical  Theology  of 
the  New  Testament,  published  by  the  Messrs.  Clark  of  Edinburgh,  and  the  other,  Dr. 
J.  P.  Thompson's  Theology  of  Christ,  which  will  be  found  well  worthy  of  consulta* 

tion  and  study. 

G,  E.  D, 

DIVINITY  SCHOOL  OF  YALE  COLLEGE,  Aug.  1871. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION". 

§1.   Definition  of  the   Science,    1-6.     1.   Christian  Theology  in  general,  what? 

2.  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  general  description.     3.   How 
distinguished  from  Biblical  Dogmatics,  in  character,  aim,  and  compass?     Its 
demand  from  those  who  cultivate  it.     4.  Place  in  Theological  Encyclopedia. 
5.  Importance. 

§2.  Its  History,  6-14.     1.  Why  given?     2.  Period  anterior  to  the  Eeformation. 

3.  Purely  historical  treatment;  literature.     4.  Errors  to  be  avoided. 

§3.  Its  Method,  Main  Divisions,  and  Demands,  14-18.  1.  The  genetic,  chrono- 
logical, and  analytical  method  described  and  defended.  2.  Order  of  study. 

3.  The  Scientific  and  Christian  character  of  this  investigation. 

PART  L 

OLD  TESTAMENT  FOUNDATION. 

§4.  Mosaism,  19-25.  1.  Foundation  of  the  New  Testament  Theology.  2.  Pre- 
eminence of  the  Israelitish  people,  what,  and  how  explained?  4.  Source  of 
our  knowledge  concerning  Moses.  5.  How  alone  Mosaism  can  be  Compre- 
hended. 6.  Its  monotheistic  character, — reality,  source,  and  result.  7.  Its 
Theocratic  form,  whence,  and  whence  not,  sprung?  8.  Worship  required; 
character,  form,  and  ceremonies.  Difference  between  type  and  symbol. 
9.  Ethical  tendency  and  character.  What  charge  against  Mosaism  and  how 
answered?  10.  The  imperfection  of  Mosaism  stated.  11.  How  preparatory 
to  Christianity? 

§5.  Prophetism,  25-31.  1.  Position  and  office  of  the  prophets.  2.  Source  of 
their  knowledge.  3.  Close  connection  of  Prophetism  with  Mosaism.  4.  Mes- 
sianic prophecy  described.  5.  Benefit  of  Propheti?m  to  the  people  of  Israel; 
to  the  G-entile  world.  6.  How  a  preparation  for  the  Gospel?  7.  Importance 
of  its  study. 

§6.  Judaism,  31-37.  1.  Why  a  knowledge  of  Judaism  necessary?  2.  Judaism 
defined,  and  whence  known.  3.  Its  favorable  side.  4.  Its  unfavorable  side. 
5.  The  Pharisees,  Sadducees,  and  Essenes  described.  6.  Combination  of 
light  and  shade  in  the  religious  ideas  of  the  Jews.  7.  Messianic  expectations, 
whence  known  and  what? 

§7.  John  the  Baptist,  37-39.  1.  Limit  of  Biblical  Theology  in  regard  to  him. 
2.  His  position  and  work.  3.  A  distinction  in  respect  to  his  testimony. 

4.  Source  and  value. 

§  8.  Result,  39.     Remark   of  De   Pressense. 


VI  CONTENTS. 


PART  II. 

THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 

§  9.  General  Survey,  40-44.  1.  Christ  as  a  witness  to  the  truth,  how?  2,  3.  Source 
of  our  knowledge  in  regard  to  his  teachings.  4.  Peculiar  character  of  his 
teachings.  5.  Whence  drawn?  6.  Form.  7.  Relation  of  his  teachings  to 
those  of  the  Old  Testament. 

CHAPTER  I. 
THE  SYNOPTICAL  GOSPELS. 

§  10.  The  Kingdom  of  God,  44-47.  1.  The  fundamental  idea  which  pervades  our 
Lord's  teachings.  2.  Nature  of  this  Kingdom ;  six  particulars. 

§11.  £s  Founder,  48-51.  1.  Forms  of  announcement  of  himself.  2.  Phrase 
"Son  of  Man;"  origin  and  meaning.  3.  Growing  clearness  with  which  He 
spoke  of  his  Messiahship,  how  explained?  4.  His  true  humanity,  how  indi- 
cated? how  different  from  other  men?  5.  His  superhuman  dignity. 

§12.  The  Supreme  Ruler,  51-55.  1.  Dependence  of  the  Son.  2.  His  teaching  con- 
cerning God.  3.  "Father;"  meaning.  4.  What  difference,  in  his  teachings, 
from  the  Old  Testament  representations?  5.  Government  and  Providence  of 
God.  6.  How  God  reveals  himself.  7.  Teachings  concerning  the  Holy  Spirit. 
8.  Comparison  of  our  Lord's  teachings  with  those  of  profane  or  even  sacred 
antiquity.  9.  Bearing  of  the  whole  upon  his  superhuman  dignity. 

§  13.  Its  Subjects,  55-61.  1 .  The  holy  angels ;  personality  and  work.  2.  The  fallen 
spirits,  their  personality  and  work ;  demoniacal  possession.  3,4.  Importance, 
nature,  and  constitution  of  man ;  conscience.  5.  Sinfulness  of  men;  difference 
between  the  teachings  of  Paul  and  Christ.  6.  Universality  of  sin.  9.  Origin 
of  sin.  8.  Nature  of  sin.  9.  Natural  consequences  of  sin.  10.  Its  punish- 
ment. 11.  Present  position  of  the  sinner. 

§  14.  Salvation,  62-68.  1.  Our  Lord's  view  of  the  Old  Testament.  2.  His  rela- 
tion to  the  prophetical  books.  3.  To  the  Law.  4.  His  description  of  salva- 
tion. 5.  How  given  by  Him  to  men.  6.  His  sufferings  and  death ;  their  end 
and  nature.  7.  His  continued  work;  his  second  coming,  what? 

§  15.  The  Way  of  Salvation,  68-73.  1.  Calling  of  the  Gentiles.  2.  Repentance 
and  conversion.  3.  Faith:  its  nature,  object,  importance.  4.  Manifestatiou 
of  faith.  5.  Particular  fruits  of  faith.  6.  The  Church.  7.  Ordinances;  ob- 
ject and  end.  8.  Final  triumph. 

§16.  The  Consummation,  73-79.  1.  Beyond  the  grave.  2.  State  of  believers 
after  death;  of  the  wicked.  Promise  of  Christ  concerning  his  coming. 
3.  Tokens  of  his  coming.  4.  How  announced  and  accompanied.  5.  Resur- 
rection of  the  dead;  extent  and  time.  5.  The  judgment.  7.  The  future  re- 
ward; merited?  8.  In  what  it  will  consist.  9.  Punishment  of  the  wicked; 
its  duration.  10.  Time  of  Christ's  coming. 


CONTENTS.  Vll 

CHAPTER   II. 

THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN. 

§  17.  Introduction,  80-84.  1.  Grounds  for  treating  it  separately.  2.  Why  a  sepa- 
rate treatment  especially  necessary  now?  3.  It  is  said  that  we  are  here  not 
listening  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  but  only  of  John.  4.  The  main  thought  in  the 
discourses  of  our  Lord  in  John. 

§18.  The  Son  of  God  in  the  Flesh,  84-88.  1.  The  /  who  here  speaks;  difference 
between  the  Synoptical  Gospels  and  John  in  the  mode  of  exhibiting  the  divine 
dignity  of  Christ.  2.  "Son  of  God"  indicates  in  general  what?  proof. 
3.  Man  only  in  appearance?  Evidence  to  the  contrary.  4.  Sinlessness. 
5.  Claim  of  Messiah  ship.  6.  The  human  and  divine  factors. 

§  19.  The  Son  of  God  in  relation  to  the  Father,  88-92.  1.  Existence  of  the  Son  of 
God  from  eternity.  2.  Equality  with  the  Father.  3.  Sharing  hi  his  nature, 
majesty,  and  work.  4.  In  what  sense  dependent  upon  the  Father?  5.  The 
idea  of  God  given  by  him ;  how  revealed?  6.  Homage  due  to  Him.  7.  Re- 
sult as  to  any  essential  difference  between  Himself  and  the  Godhead. 

§  20.  The  Son  of  God  in  relation  to  the  World,  93-100.  1.  When  commenced? 
2.  Meaning  of  "  the  world."  3.  Sin,  its  universality  and  extent.  4.  Origin. 
5.  Difference  between  men.  6.  To  what  to  be  ascribed?  7.  Extent  of  the 
plan  of  redemption.  8.  How  Christ  becomes  the  light  of  the  world ;  how 
its  life.  9.  How  come  for  judgment,  and  in  what  it  consists.  10.  In  what 
the  work  of  Jesus  culminates.  11.  Faith:  nature  and  object.  12.  Threefold 
ground  of  faith.  13.  Inexcusableness  of  unbelief. 

§  21.  The  Son  of  God  in  relation  to  his  Disciples,  100-104.  1.  The  "drawing''  of 
believers,  what?  2.  Their  union  with  each  other;  conditions.  3.  Metaphors 
expressing  the  communion  between  Him  and  them;  indicate  what  three 
things.  4.  The  new  birth;  necessity  and  origin.  5.  Fruit  of  this  communion 
with  Christ.  6.  Continuance  of  this  communion  after  his  death.  7.  Three- 
fold agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  8.  Our  Lord's  personal  ministry  in  heaven. 

§  22.  The  Son  of  God  in  his  Future,  104-107.  1.  Eternal  life,  how  much  compre- 
hended in  ?  2.  Beginning  and  nature  of  the  future  blessedness.  3.  Resur- 
rection and  judgment.  4.  The  second  coming  of  Christ  5.  No  final  restitu- 
tion; evidence. 

CHAPTER  III. 
HIGHER  UNITY. 

§23.  Difference  and  Agreement,  108-114.  1.  Difference  between  the  sayings  of 
Christ  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels  and  in  John.  2.  As  to  form;  nature  and 
explanation.  3.  Contents.  4.  In  regard  to  his  own  person  and  work. 
5.  Eschatology.  6.  As  to  leading  thoughts,  found  only  in  one.  7.  Import- 
ance of  the  difference  observable,  for  three  reasons. 

§24.  Result,  114-116.  1.  Connection  between  the  teachings  of  our  Lord,  and  of 
Moses  and  the  prophets.  2.  Between  His  teachings  and  those  of  the  Apostles. 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

PART  III. 

THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

§25.   General  Survey,  117-122.     1.  Apostles,  who  here  meant?     2.  Historical  im-     - 
portance  of  their  testimony.     3.  How  far  possible  to  regard  the  theology  of 
the  Apostles  as  a  whole?    4.  Division  of  the  subject  and  the  object  in  view. 
7.  Helps. 

CHAPTER  I. 
THE  PETRINE  THEOLOGY. 

§26.   Preliminary  Survey,    122-126.     1.   With  which  Apostle   commence,   and 
why?     2.   Sources  of  his  testimony.     3.   "Where  best  found?   2d  Epistle  of 
Peter.     4.  Harmonious  development  of  the  Petrine  theology.     5.  Individuality   . 
of  Peter  in  connection  with  his  teachings.     6.  Exhibited  in  three  forms. 

§27.  Peter  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  126-133.  1.  Lays  special  emphasis  upon 
what?  2.  His  testimony  in  regard  to  (1)  the  theocratic  dignity,  (2)  the  moral 
glory,  (3)  the  superhuman  greatness  of  Christ.  3.  What  fact  does  he  make 
most  prominent?  4.  The  sufferings  of  Christ.  5.  Yan  Oosterzee's  view  of 
his  work  after  death.  6.  His  glory. 

§  28.  Peter  the  Apostle  of  the  Circumcision,  133-138.  1.  Salvation  only  through 
Christ.  2.  Universality  of  sin :  origin,  culmination,  extent.  3.  Extent  of  the 
provision  of  salvation.  5.  Old  Testament  forms  of  statement  employed. 

6.  His  doctrine  concerning  God.     7.  His  view  of  the  Christian  life ;  universal 
priesthood  of  believers. 

§  29.  Peter  the  Apostle  of  Hope,  138-142.  1.  Comparison  with  the  other  Apostles. 
2.  This  characteristic  manifest  in  the  discourses  of  Peter.  3.  In  his  first 
Epistle.  4.  Proved  from  an  analysis  of  this  epistle.  5.  Source  of  this  ele- 
ment of  hope  in  the  Petrine  Theology.  6.  Its  value. 

§  30.  The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  142-147.  1.  Different  views  in  regard  to  its 
genuineness.  2.  Difference  between  the  first  and  second  epistles,  what?  How 
accounted  for?  3.  Agreement  of  the  writer  with  the  first  epistle  as  an  Apostle 
of  Jesus  Christ.  4.  As  the  Apostle  of  the  Circumcision.  5.  As  the  Apostle 
of  Hope.  6.  The  two  epistles  differ,  but  do  not  contradict  each  other. 

7.  Result  of  this  investigation. 

§31.  The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine,  147-153.  1.  Probability  in  advance  that  the 
Petrine  exhibition  of  the  Gospel  would  not  stand  alone.  2.  Resemblance  to 
Peter  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  3.  In  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.  4.  In  the  Epistle 
of  Jude.  5.  Especially  in  the  Epistle  of  James ;  his  representation  of  sin ;  of 
faith  and  works  as  compared  with  that  of  Paul.  His  teaching  in  regard  to 
the  essence  of  Christianity.  General  character  of  his  epistle.  6.  His  teach- 
ing compared  with  that  of  Peter  in  regard  to  the  person  of  the  Lord  and  the 
Christian  life ;  an  essential  difference  in  one  respect ;  hope  characterizing  both 
epistles. 

§  32.  Result  and  Transition,  153-154.  1.  Agreement  of  the  Petrine  Theology  with 
the  personal  character  of  Peter;  bearings.  2.  Its  relation  to  the  epistles  of 
Paul.  3.  Its  position  as  compared  with  the  Pauline  Theology. 


CONTENTS.  IX 

CHAPTER  II. 
THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY. 

§33.  Preliminary  Swrvey,  155-161.  1.  How,  in  general,  described?  2.  Sources 
of  our  knowledge  concerning  it;  genuineness  of  the  Pauline  epistles;  order 
of  their  composition ;  alleged  difference  between  them.  3.  Ground-thought  of 
the  doctrinal,  teaching  of  Paul.  4.  Subject-matter  of  the  Pauline  Theology, 
character  of;  form  of  exhibition.  5.  Whence  known  by  him.  6.  Value. 
7.  Literature.  8,  Best  manner  of  treating. 

FIRST  DIVISION". 
MANKIND  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL  MAN  BEFORE  AND  OUT  OF  CHRIST. 

§34.  The  Heathen  and  Jewish  World,  161-165.  1.  Paul's  description  of  mankind 
before  and  out  of  Christ,  where  found?  his  qualifications  for  making  it. 
2.  Heathenism,  what?  3.  Its  source  and  development.  4.  Consequences. 
5.  Guilt  of  the  Jewish  world.  6.  Result  as  to  the  character  of  man.  7.  Con- 
clusion of  the  argument. 

§  35.  The  Cause  of  this  Condition,  165-171.  1.  The  question  of  the  origin  of  evil. 
2.  Difference  from  James  and  Peter  in  regard  to  his  use  of  the  word  "sin;" 
its  origin  and  consequence.  3.  Anthropology  of  Paul :  constitution  of  man ; 
flesh,  transgression,  freedom.  4.  The  law,  what  ordinarily  meant  by?  its  aim; 
why  not  able  to  give  life?  summary.  5.  Death,  what? 

§36.  Its  Consequences,  171-174.  1.  Why  a  feeling  of  discord  in  the  heart? 
2.  How  distinguished  from  the  conflict  in  the  heart  of  the  believer?  Who  de- 
scribed in  Rom.  vii?  3.  The  whole  creation.  4.  Punishment  of  sin.  5.  Re* 
lation  of  the  consciousness  of  misery  to  salvation. 

SECOND    DIVISION. 

MANKIND  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL  MAN  THROUGH  AND  IN  CHRIST. 

§  37.  The  Plan  of  Salvation,  174-180.  1.  God  its  author.  2.  The  Gospel  a  mys- 
tery, in  what  sense,  and  how  known?  3.  Preparation  for.  4.  A  result  of 
God's  eternal  purpose ;  election  founded  in  what;  relation  to  faith  and  holi- 
ness ;  respects  individuals.  5.  Relation  between  foreknowledge  and  fore- 
ordination,  and  calling  j  God's  "  good  pleasure "  not  arbitrary.  6.  Paul's 
answer  to  objections.  7.  How  the  doctrine  is  to  be  regarded  by  believers. 
8.  Its  relation  to  the  Divine  perfections. 

§38.  The  Christ,  180-185.  1.  Center  of  the  Divine  plan  of  salvation.  2.  Asser- 
tion of  the  Tubingen  school;  answered.  3.  History  of  Christ's  earthly  life  in 
the  writings  of  Paul,  why  so  slight?  4.  Humanity  and  preexistence  of  Christ. 
5.  His  divinity.  6.  "  The  man,  Christ  Jesus." 

§39.  The  Work  of  Redemption,  185-192.  1.  "  Righteousness  of  God."  explanation 
of  the  phrase.  2.  The  work  of  Chri-t,  its  various  parts;  which  the  chief? 

3.  The  death  of  Christ,  how  represented?  active  and  passive   obedience. 

4,  Nature,  necessity,  and  effect  of  His  sacrifice.     5.  Connection  between  the 
propitiatory  death  of  Christ  and  justification ;  distinction  between  the  design 


X  CONTENTS. 

and  fruit  of  His  death.  6.  The  basis  of  reconciliation;  its  author.  7.  Con- 
nection between  forgiveness  and  sanctification.  8,  9.  The  resurrection  of 
Christ,  its  prominence;  nature  of.  10.  Ascension,  intercession,  and  reign  of 
Christ.  11.  The  exaltation  of  Christ,  what  to  Himself  and  to  his  people  ? 

§40.  The  Way  of  Salvation,  192-187.  1.  Meaning  of  "faith"  in  the  writings  of 
Paul.  2.  Its  object,  result,  seat  3.  How  produced  and  strengthened;  the 
Holy  Spirit.  4.  Relation  to  the  new  life;  repentance.  5.  A  peculiarity  of 
the  Pauline  doctrinal  system ;  relation  of  faith,  hope,  and  love.  6.  Character 
of  the  new  life.  7.  That  God  can  treat  believers,  notwithstanding  their  im- 
perfections, as  righteous,  explained.  8.  Results  of  faith  in  this  life;  relation 
of  justification  and  adoption. 

§41.  The  Church,  197-203.  1.  "Whence  the  Pauline  Ecclesiology  to  be  learned? 
2.  Meaning  of  "  church"  as  used  by  Paul ;  not  identical  with  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  3.  Names  and  figures  used  to  describe  it.  4.  Relation  and  meaning  of 
baptism.  5.  The  Lord's  Supper,  nature  of.  6.  Unity  and  officers  and  gifts 
of  the  church.  7.  Its  character.  8.  Its  catholicity;  slaves,  women,  9.  Final 
triumph.  10.  The  expectations  cherished. 

§  42.  The  Future,  203-208.  1.  The  speedy  advent  of  Christ.  2.  Period.  3.  Na- 
ture. 4.  Resurrection  of  believers ;  extent  and  time  of  occurrence ;  nature, 
possibility,  certainty  and  glory.  5.  Culmination  of  Christ's  dominion  on  the 
earth.  6.  The  final  judgment.  7.  Blessedness  of  the  righteous.  8.  Future 
misery  of  the  unconverted ;  no  countenance  for  the  ultimate  salvation  of  all. 
9.  Final  result  in  respect  to  G-od. 

§43.  The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine,  208-224.  1.  Paul  not  alone.  2.  Stephen, 
his  affinity  with  Paul.  3.  The  writings  of  Luke.  4.  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
age  and  aim.  5.  Its  teachings  concerning  God.  6.  Its  use  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 7.  And  of  Sacred  History.  8.  More  particularly  the  sacrifices. 
9.  Imperfection  and  significance  of  sacrifice.  10.  Dignity  of  the  New  above 
the  Old  Dispensation,  how  exhibited  ?  Christ  exalted  above  whom  ?  11.  True 
humanity  of  Christ.  12.  His  relation  to  temptation.  13.  "Surety  of  a  better 
covenant,"  meaning?  14.  Sustained  comparison  illustrating  the  value  of 
Christ's  work;  value  attached  to  the  form  of  his  death.  15.  Aim  of  Christ's 
sacrifice,  and  mode  of  its  operation.  16.  Its  results  in  respect  to  Christ  and 
his  people;  meaning  of  perfection  as  distinguished  from  sanctification ;  further 
results.  17.  Its  enduring  power.  18.  The  work  of  our  Lord  in  heaven, 
19.  His  second  advent  and  its  consequences.  20,  21.  Duties  arising  from 
these  privileges.  22.  Basis  of  the  writer's  exhortations ;  true  ground  of  hope 
of  perseverance.  23.  Helps  to  the  Christian  life.  24.  Difference  and  agree- 
ment between  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  the  writings  of  Paul, 

§  44.  Result  and  Transition,  224-226.  1.  The  teaching  of  Paul  compared  with  that 
of  Peter ;  difference  accounted  for.  2.  Originality  of  the  Pauline  theology ; 
remarks  of  Bonifas  and  A.  Monod.  3.  Where  the  fullest  development  of 
Christian  thought  to  be  found,  and  on  what  principle  ? 


CONTENTS.  XI 

CHAPTER  III. 
THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JOHN. 

§45.  General  Survey,  227-232.  1.  Its  position  among  the  Apostolic  doctrinal 
systems;  how  shown?  2.  Whence  learned?  3.  Order  of  his  writings. 

4.  Peculiar  character  of  the   Johannean   Theology  ;   how  accounted  for  ? 
remark  of  Godet.     5.  The  axis  around  which  all  revolves.     6.  His  theology 
as  contained  in  his  Gospel  and  first  Epistle,   how  described.     7.   In  the 
Apocalypse.     8.  Treatment  of  the  Johannean  doctrinal  system. 

FIRST  DIVISION. 

THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  EPISTLES. 

§46.  The  World  out  of  Christ,  232-237.  1.  John's  teaching  concerning  God. 
2.  How  revealed?  .3.  The  Logos,  who  and  why  so  called?  diiference  between 
the  Logos  of  John  and  of  Philo.  4.  Dignity  and  work  of  the  Logos- 

5.  Opposed  by  the  world,  why?  Doctrine  concerning  Satan.     6.  Sin  and  death- 

7.  The  incarnation;   necessity,  source,  preparation  for;   the  Gentile  world. 

8.  Two  classes  of  men. 

§47.  The  Appearing  of  Christ,  237-242.  1.  Preexistence  and  divine  nature  of 
the  Logos.  2.  His  true  humanity  and  moral  perfection.  3.  The  Messiah  of 
Israel  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  4.  How  his  glory  is  manifested. 

5.  The  death  of  Christ,  how  the  life  of  the  world?    6.  His  work  after  his  as- 
cension; Antichrist.     7.  Result  of  Christ's  work. 

§48.  The  Life  in  Christ,  242-246.  1.  Faith;  importance,  nature,  and  relation  to 
knowledge.  2.  Its  results.  3.  How  it  manifests  itself.  4.  Love.  5.  Union 
and  perseverance  of  believers.  6.  Their  blessedness.  7.  Why  the  Johannean 
Theology  is  specially  important  in  our  time. 

SECOND    DIVISION. 
THE    APOCALYPSE. 

§49.  Diversity  and  Harmony,  247 -252.  1.  Estimate  of  the  Apocalypse.  2.  How 
different  from  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  John.  3.  How  far  similar.  4.  Its 
teachings  concerning  the  person  of  Christ.  5.  His  relation  to  his  Church. 

6.  Doctrine  concerning  God ;  what  peculiarity  to  be  observed  ?     7.  Doctrine 
concerning  angels,  man,  grace,  faith  and  works,  extent  of  the  provisions  of 
the  Gospel.     8.  Eschatology.     9.  Result  of  an  impartial  survey  of  the  doctrinal 
system  of  the  Apocalypse. 

PART  IV. 

HIGHER  UNITY. 

§  50.  Harmony  of  the  Apostles  with  each  other,  252-260.  1.  Why  the  higher  unity 
of  the  different  Apostolic  systems  not  to  be  passed  over  in  silence?  2.  This 
unity  recognized  by  the  Apostles.  3.  Evident  in  their  fundamental  concep- 
tion. What  necessary  to  be  remembered  in  order  to  comprehend  the  full 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

value  of  this  agreement?  5.  This  agreement  exhibited  in  their  conception  of 
God.  6.  Of  the  sinfulness  of  man.  7.  Of  Christ;  alleged  difference  between 
the  teachings  of  Paul  and  John.  8.  Of  the  work  of  redemption.  9.  Of  faith 
and  conversion,  10.  Of  eschatology.  11.  Of  the  connection  between  doctrine 
and  life.  12.  Theory  that  the  epistles  were  written  with  the  express  purpose 
of  combating  or  reconciling  hostile  schools. 

§  51.  Harmony  of  the  Apostles  with  the  Lord,  260-263.  1.  Harmony  of  the  Apos- 
tles characterized.  2.  Accounted  for.  3.  Difference  and  agreement.  4.  Full- 
ness of  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles  as  compared  with  that  of  our  Lord;  how 
related?  5.  Other  influences.  6.  Importance  of  the  unity  between  the  teach- 
ings of  Christ  and  those  of  his  disciples. 

§  52.  Harmony  of  the  Lord  and  the  Apostles  with  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament, 
263-265.  1.  Statement.  2.  Their  view  and  use  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
testimony  concerning  the  way  of  salvation.  3.  The  main  and  dominant 
ideas  hi  both  parts  of  the  Scriptures.  4.  Nature  of  the  difference  between 
the  two.  5.  How  alone  this  grand  harmony  is  to  be  explained. 


INTRODUCTION. 


§1. 

Definition  of  the  Science. 

THE  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament  is  that  part  of 
theological  science,  in  which  the  teachings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment concerning  GOD  and  divine  things  are  comprehensively 
and  systematically  exhibited.  It  is  distinguished  from  Doctri- 
nal Theology  by  its  character,  scope  and  aim,  and  naturally 
falls,  in  Theological  Encyclopedia,  into  the  department  of  His- 
torical Theology. 

1.  Theology  is,  in  general,  the  science  of  God  and  divine 
things ;  or  according  to  a  later,  though  not  therefore  a  better 
definition,  the  science  of  religion.  In  its  more  restricted  sense 
the  word  signifies  the  science  concerning  God,  in  distinction 
from  that  concerning  man,  sin,  CHKIST,  etc.  (Theology,  the  name 
of  the  locus  de  Deo,  as  distinguished  from  Anthropology,  Hamar- 
tology,  Christology,  etc.).  There  is  no  religion  of  any  impor- 
tance, which  has  not  a  more  or  less  developed  theology  (e.  g.  the 
theology  of  Mosaism,  Islamism,  Buddhism,  etc.).  Philosophy, 
even,  has  its  theology,  as  it  has  its  anthropology  and  cosmology. 
From  this  purely  philosophic  theology,  however,  Christian  the- 
ology is  entirely  distinct ;  since  the  former  is  a  product  of  indi- 
vidual thought,  in  the  light  of  speculation  or  experience,  while 
the  latter,  on  the  contrary,  is  derived  from  a  special  divine  rev- 
elation, the  sacred  record  of  which  is  the  Holy  Scripture.  To 


2  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

this  last,  the  saying  of  THOMAS  AQUINAS  is  entirely  applicable : 
A  Deo  docetur,  Deum  docet,  et  ad  Deum  ducit.  Comp.  the  article 
Theologie  by  L.  PELT,  in  HERZOG'S  Real-Encycl.  XV.  S.  748. 

2.  The  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament  treats  of  the 
ideas  respecting  Grod  and  divine  things  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament.     It  investigates,  in  other  words,  the  doctrines  of  the 
New  Testament,  without  intending  thereby  to  maintain,  that 
the  New  Testament  teaches  a  strictly  completed  doctrinal  sys- 
tem ;  much  less,  that  the  characteristic  feature  of  the  Christian 
revelation  consists  exclusively  or  predominantly  in  its  doctrine. 
But  though  this  latter  statement  must  be  rejected,  in  cannot  be 
denied  that  the  New  Testament  does  contain  an  actual  doctrine 
respecting  Grod  and  divine  things.     This  doctrine  the  Biblical 
Theology  of  the  New  Testament  comprehensively  surveys,  ex- 
amines its  several  parts  in  themselves  and  in  their  mutual  rela- 
tions, and  presents  it,  so  far  as  possible,  as  a  composite  whole  in 
the  light  of  history. 

In  the  broadest  sense  of  the  term,  Biblical  Theology  embraces 
the  doctrine  concerning  God  and  divine  things  as  found  in  both 
the  Old  and  the  New  Testaments.  That  both  are  intimately 
connected  is  generally  recognized :  Novum  Testamentum  in  Vetere 
latet,  Vetus  in  Novo  patet  (AUGUSTINE).  But  although  an  entire 
separation  is  scarcely  conceivable,  a  real  distinction  is  possible, 
desirable,  and  in  a  certain  sense  necessary,  and  of  late  years, 
especially,  has  been  successfully  made. 

3.  The  distinction  between  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  Christian  Dogmatics,  which  have  not  unfre- 
quently  been  confounded,  to  the  injury  of  both,  is  already  be- 
ginning to  be  clear.     Both  of  these  departments  of  theological 
science  possess  a  specific   character.     That  of  Christian  Dog- 
matics is  liistoYico-philosophical ;  that  of  the  Biblical  Theology 
of  the  New  Testament,  on  the  other  hand,  is  purely  historical. 
The  former  inquires,  not  only  what  the  Christian  Church  in 
general  or  one  of  its  branches  in  particular  regards  as  truth,  but 
predominantly  what  man  is  or  is  not  to  believe  in  the  sphere  of 
the  Christian  faith.     The  latter,  on  the  contrary,  asks  simply 
what  is  presented  as  truth  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 
It  has  to  do,  from  its  own  point  of  view,  not  with  the  correct- 
ness but  only  with  the  contents  of  the  ideas  which  it  finds  in  the 


Aim  and  Compass  of  Biblical  Theology.  3 

teachings  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles.  "It  does  not  demon- 
strate; it  states.  (KEUSS)."* — It  has,  consequently,  an  entirely 
different  aim  from  that  which  the  student  of  Systematic  Theol- 
ogy proposes  to  himself.  While  Doctrinal  Theology  seeks  to 
develop  the  contents  of  the  Christian  faith  and  to  exhibit,  in  the 
evidences  of  revelation,  its  firm  foundation,  Biblical  Theology 
has  finished  its  task,  when  it  has  clearly  shown  what  the  New 
Testament,  in  distinction  from  other  religious  books,  announces 
as  truth,  leaving  its  defence  and  vindication  to  the  kindred  sci- 
ence. If,  so  far,  its  aim  is  humbler,  its  compass,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  so  much  the  greater.  If  since  the  time  of  Calixtus 
(1634),  Doctrinal  Theology  and  Ethics — whether  justly  or  not 
need  not  here  be  decided — have  been  separated,  this  separation 
in  the  department  of  Biblical  Theology  is  neither  legitimate  nor 
desirable.  A  sharp  line  of  distinction  between  doctrine  as  re- 
lated to  salvation  and  doctrine  as  related  to  life  is  entirely  foreign 
to  the  spirit  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles.  As  viewed  by  the 
New  Testament  writers,  faith  and  life  are  not  merely  allied,  but 
identical.  Biblical  Theology  has,  therefore,  to  embrace  in  its  in- 
vestigation, the  practical  no  less  than  the  theoretical  side  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  New  Testament.  On  the  other  hand,  it  cannot 
be  required  to  treat  expressly  of  the  life  of  our  Lord  and  his 
Apostles  along  with  their  doctrinal  teaching,  as  has  been  done 
among  others  by  C.  F.  SCHMID,  (in  a  work  shortly  to  be  men- 
tioned). 

Since  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament  exhibits, 
therefore,  a  much  more  objective  character  than  Doctrinal  The- 
ology, it  is  able  to  dispense  with  the  help  of  the  latter,  although 
the  latter  cannot  do  without  the  former.  It  demands  from 
those  who  cultivate  it,  not  so  much  that  they  should  be  Chris- 
tian philosophers,  as  that  they  be  good  exegetes  and  thorough 
historians.  For  the  Biblical  theologian,  as  truly  as  for  the  in- 
terpreter, the  main  question  is:  how  read  ye?f  It  is  bet- 
ter, therefore,  to  style  our  science  Biblical  Theology,  than 
Biblical  Dogmatics.  By  the  Biblical  Dogmatics  of  the  New 

*  The  distinction  of  SCHENKEL,  Christl  Dogm.  I.  S.  380,  is  hazy  and  erroneous: 
"  Its  aim  is,  not  to  exhibit  the  truth  of  redemption,  but  only  (I )  the  reality  of  the 
Biblical  history  of  redemption  (11). 

f  Comp.  J.  I.  DOEDES,  Hermeneutiek  voor  de  Schriften  des  N.  V.  Utrecht,  1866 
bl.  8. 


4  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

Testament  is  generally  understood  a  finished  system  of  doctrine, 
so  far  as  this  has  been  drawn  from  the  New  Testament  regarded 
as  a  whole.  Biblical  Theology,  on  the  other  hand,  aims  princi- 
pally to  institute  a  purely  historical  investigation  concerning 
the  doctrine  of  each  of  the  individual  writers.  Then,  too,  the 
word  "dogma"  almost  necessarily  suggests  something  sanctioned 
by  the  Church.  The  utterances  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles, 
with  which  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament  is 
concerned,  are  the  materials  from  which  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  were  subsequently  derived  and  by  which  they  are  sup- 
ported. 

4.  The  character  of  our  science,  as  thus  described,  decides 
at  once  its  place  in  the  organic  structure  of  Theological  En- 
cyclopedia, If  we  distinguish  between  exegetical,  historical, 
systematic,  and  practical  theology,  it  is  evident  that  the  Biblical 
Theology  of  the  New  Testament  stands  at  the  head  of  the 
second,  where  it  shines  "  as  one  of  the  foci  of  theological  study." 
(HAGENBACH).  It  thankfully  accepts  the  absolutely  indispens- 
able aid  which  exegesis  affords,  and  lends  this,  in  turn,  to  the 
other  parts  of  historical  theology,  as  presently  also  to  systematic 
and  practical  theology,  but  especially  to  the  history  of  Christian 
doctrine,  of  which  it  is  at  once  the  foundation  and  the  starting 
point.  On  the  other  hand  it  may  leave  the  critical  investigation 
of  the  history  of  the  sources  from  which  it  draws,  entirely  to 
the  so-called  science  of  Introduction  (Isagogics  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament). Undoubtedly  it  must  use  the  light  which  the  latter 
sheds,  so  far  as  is  necessary  and  possible,  as  a  help  in  its  inves- 
tigation. In  respect  to  disputed  and  important  questions  in 
Introduction,  the  student  in  this  department  may  be  required  to 
settle  his  views,  and  to  pronounce  and  defend  his  opinion.  But 
a  formal  and  exhaustive  treatment  of  these  questions  cannot  be 
demanded  of  him.  The  ever  growing  extent  of  the  subject 
renders,  in  our  day  especially,  a  division  of  labor  indispensable. 
The  ideal  of  this  department  is  reached,  whenever  it  gives  a 
clear,  systematic  and  complete  survey  of  the  doctrines  taught 
in  the  New  Testament,  without  concerning  itself  about  what- 
ever else  is  maintained  by  critics,  whether  justly  or  quite  erro- 
neously, concerning  the  origin,  composition  and  value  of  these 
books. 


Importance  of  the  Study.  6 

5.  After  what  has  been  said,  the  importance  of  the  investiga- 
tion in  which  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 
employs  itself  scarcely  needs  to  be  shown.  Regarded  only 
from  a  purely  historical  point  of  view,  it  deserves  the  attention 
of  every  student  of  the  history  of  mankind  and  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  on  earth. — The  intelligent  Christian  justly  prizes 
an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  answer  regarding  the  highest 
questions  of  life,  given  by  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles. — To  the 
Christian  theologian,  especially,  is  the  knowledge  of  the  doctrine 
of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  necessary,  more  than  to  many  others. 
— As  a  Protestant,  besides,  he  has  an  incitement  to  this  investi- 
gation, which  the  Eoman  Catholic  has  either  not  at  all  or  not 
in  the  same  degree.  And  so  far  is  the  considerably  modified 
view  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  in  our  day,  from  making  this 
study  less  important,  that,  wholly  aside  from  tne  correctness  of 
such  modification,  the  signs  of  the  times  all  the  more  urge  its 
unwearied  prosecution. — It  is  with  reason  also  required  of  can- 
didates for  the  ministry  in  the  Church  [of  Holland]  that  for 
two  years  they  pursue  in  the  University  the  study  of  Biblical 
(in  distinction  from  Systematic)  Theology.  Its  special  treat- 
ment as  a  distinct  science,  although  of  comparatively  recent 
origin,  is  not  only  justifiable,  but  must  be  regarded  as  indicating 
real  progress. 

Literature. — On  the  definition  and  character  of  this  science 
compare  F.  F.  FLECK,  "  on  Biblical  Theology  as  a  Science  of  our 
Time,"  in  ROHK'S  Prediger-BiUiothek,  1834 ;  SCHMID,  "  on  the  In- 
fluence and  the  Position  of  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the  N.  T.  in  our 
Time,"  in  the  Tub.  Zeitschrift  fur  Theol,  1838 ;  SCHENKEL,  "  The 
Task  of  Biblical  Theology,"  Stud.  u.  Krit,  1852 ;  B.  WEISS, 
"  The  Relation  of  Exegesis  to  Biblical  Theology,"  in  the  Deutsche 
Zeitschr.,  1852 ;  J.  KOSTLIN,  "  On  the  Unity  and  Manifoldness  of 
the  doctrinal  teachings  of  the  Apostles"  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  Deutsche 
Theol,  1857 :  the  introduction  to  LANGE'S  Commentary:  and,  best 
of  all,  the  article  by  C.  J.  NITZSCH,  in  HERZOG'S  Real-Encyclo- 
pddie,  II.  S.  219  ff. 

Questions  for  Consideration. — The  character  and  psychologi- 
cal basis  of  theological  science  in  general. — Why  was  the  in- 
vestigation of  the  theology  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 


6  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

formerly  united,  and  afterward  separated  ? — Criticism  of  some 
other  definitions  of  this  science,  more  or  less  differing  from  that 
here  given. — Difference  of  opinion  concerning  its  place  in  The- 
ological Encyclopedia. — Why  does  not  the  life  of  Jesus  and 
the  Apostles  belong  to  its  province  ? — A  more  particular  ex- 
hibition and  vindication  of  its  importance,  in  itself  and  in 
comparison  with  other  branches. — How  is  the  undervaluing  of 
it  from  several  sides  to  be  explained,  and  how  to  be  met  ? 

§2. 

Its  History. 

As  a  distinct,  department  of  theological  science,  the  Biblical 
Theology  of  the  New  Testament  is  but  little  older  than  the 
present  century.  It  has  had  a  long  period  of  preparation,  but 
has  been  developed  within  a  comparatively  short  period  to  a 
high  degree,  and  is  now  in  a  condition  of  prosperity  and  life 
which  presents  strong  encouragement  for  its  further  prosecu- 
tion. 

1.  It  is  not  without  reason  that  in  the  introduction  to  any 
branch  of  scientific  inquiry,  some  account  of  its  history  is  usu- 
ally given.     In  this  process,  too,  history  maintains  its  honorable 
position  as  "the  light  of  truth,  the  witness  of  ages,  the  mis- 
tress of  life."     It  makes  us  acquainted  with  what,  in  any  given 
department,  has  been  already  accomplished,  and  thereby,  with 
what  still  remains  to  be  done.     It  shows  how  the  science  by  de- 
grees came  to  occupy  an  independent  position,  furnishes  the 
key  to  the  explanation  of  its  present  condition,  and  enables  us 
consequently  to  go  on  to  build  upon  a  well-laid  foundation. 

2.  The  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament  has  some- 
times been  justly  called  a  "distinctively  Protestant"  science. 
It  is  at  least  such  in  this  sense,  that  although  its  germs  had 
an  earlier  existence,  this  science  can  be  developed  without  hin- 
drance only  on  the  soil  of  Protestantism.     The  period  which 
preceded  the  Keformation  can  properly  receive  no  higher  name 
than  that  of  preparation.     In  this  sense  it  may  be  said  un- 


History  of  the  Science.  7 

dcmbtedly  that  the  most  distinguished  of  the  early  Church 
fathers  were  to  a  greater  or  less  degree  Biblical  theologians. 
This  honorable  title  belongs  especially  to  the  Coryphaei  of  the 
Alexandrian  School.     To  a  certain  degree  may  be  regarded  as 
evidence  of  independent  investigation  in  this  department,  the 
work  de  testimoniis,  usually  ascribed  to  CYPRIAN  (d.  258),  as 
also  that  of  JUNILIUS,  Bishop  in  Africa  in  the  sixth  century, 
de  partibus  legis.     That  the  Middle  Ages  were  not  favorable  to 
the  cultivation  of  Biblical  Theology,  lay  in  the  nature  of  the 
case.     The  question  during  that  period  was  not  as  a  rule,  "  what 
do  the  Scripures  teach,"  but,  "what  does  the  Church  teach.'" 
Still,  the  appealing  to  the  Scriptures  against  opposers  was  not 
entirely  neglected,  and  the  preparation  for  the  Eeformation 
paved  the  way  also  for  a  more  distinct  and  successful  prosecu- 
tion of  Biblical  Theology,  especially  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  Doctores  ad  Biblia  were  expressly  entrusted  with  its  exposi- 
tion, and  the  example  of  LUTHER  shows  with  what  zeal  individ- 
uals, at  least,  discharged  this  duty.    The  leading  doctrinal  works 
of  the  Eeformers  also,  may  be  regarded  as  the  fruit  of  the  earn- 
est study  of  the  Bible,  although  it  was  pursued  in  no  degree  from 
a  historical  point  of  view  or  with  a  purely  scientific  aim.     It 
was  unfortunate  that  in  the  17th  century  a  new  scholasticism 
took  the  place  of  the  old,  and  the  line  of  distinction  between 
Biblical  Theology  and  the  Doctrinal  Theology  of  the  Church 
became  more  and  more  faint.     Exegesis  was  thrown  into  the 
shade  and  Polemics  brought  into   the  foreground.      Yet  the 
views  maintained  in  these  controversies  were  defended  by  ap- 
pealing to  the  so-called  dicta  probantia  (proof  texts)  which  were 
more  or  less  fully  explained.     Even  the  endeavor  to  find  the 
truths  of  the  gospel  taught  as  clearly  and  distinctly  as  possible 
in  connection  with  the  historical  persons  in  the  Old  Testament 
led  to  a  species  of  investigation,  although  one  quite  peculiar. 
For  instance  the  theology  of  Job  (1687),  Jeremiah  (1696),  and 
even  Elizabeth  (1706)  was  exhibited  with  microscopic  minute- 
ness.    To  an  increasing  degree  the  need  was  felt,  along  with 
the  scholastico-dogmatic  method  of  investigation,  of  one  which 
should  be  exegetical  and  Biblical  (though  not  simply  historical), 
and  the  helps  for  this  were  furnished  from  different  quarters. 
In  Strasburg,   SEBASTIAN  SCHMIDT  published  his  Collegium 


8  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

Biblicum  (3d  ed.,  1689) ;  in  Holland,  WITSIUS  and  YITEINGA 
adopted  a  purely  Biblical  method.  The  reaction,  also,  of  Pie- 
tism against  Orthodoxism  had  a  favorable  preparatory  influence 
upon  this  science,  and  during  the  whole  of  the  18th  century 
an  increasing  effort  was  manifest  to  break  away  from  the 
scholastic  yoke,  and  to  return  to  the  simplicity  of  the  Bible  in 
the  exhibition  of  Christian  life  and  doctrine.  As  examples  of 
this  tendency  may  be  mentioned,  HEYMANN,  "  Essay  towards  a 
Biblical  Theology,  in  Tables  "(4th  ed.,  1758)  ;  BUSCHING,  Epitome 
Theologies,  e  solis  litteris  sacris  concinnatae  "  (1757) ;  and  from  the 
same  hand :  "  Thoughts  upon  the  nature  and  value  of  Biblico- dog- 
matic Theology  as  compared  with  Scholastic  "  (1758) ;  above  all, 
ZACHAEIJS,  "  Biblical  Theology,  or  Inquiry  into  the  Biblical  ground 
of  the  principal  theological  doctrines  "  (3e  Aufl.  5  Theile,  1786),  and 
STOKE,  Doctrince  Christianas  e  solis  litt  SS.  repetitm  Pars  Theor. 
(Stuttg.  1793  and  1807).  [Translated  with  additions  by  Eev.  S. 
S.  SCHMUCKEE,  D.D.,  under  the  title,  An  Elementary  Course 
of  Biblical  Theology,  from  the  work  of  Professors  STOEE  and  FLATT. 
2d  ed.  Andover,  1838.  8vo].  Their  footsteps  were  followed, 
both  abroad  and  in  our  own  country,  by  respectable  Biblical 
theologians  of  the  Supranaturalistic  direction,  at  the  end  of  the 
last  and  the  beginning  of  the  present  century. 

3.  With  all  the  value  to  be  attached  to  these  attempts,  the 
purely  historical  treatment  of  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New 
Testament  is  entirely  a  product  of  the  more  recent  period,  in 
which  the  distinction  between  it  and  Doctrinal  Theology,  whether 
ecclesiastical  or  philosophical,  is  more  and  more  brought  into 
the  foreground.  The  idea,  that  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the 
New  Testament  should  be  treated  as  an  independent  part  of 
historical  science,  was  first  distinctly  expressed  on  the  rational- 
istic side.  This  was  done  by  GABLEE,  Prof,  in  Altorf,  in  the 
year  1787,  in  an  academic  discourse :  de  justo  discrimine  Theol. 
Bibl.  et  Dogm.  (afterwards  incorporated  into  his  "Lesser  Theologi- 
cal Writings  "  (1831),  in  which  he  strongly  insists  that  in  the 
former  of  these  departments  the  doctrinal  teachings  of  the  dif- 
ferent writers  should  be  objectively  investigated,  distinguished 
from  each  other,  and  systematically  arranged.  His  leading 
thought  was  carried  out  by  his  colleague,  G.  L.  BAUEE,  who 
published  a  "Biblical  Theology  of  the  N.  T."  in  four  volumes 


History  and  Literature.  9 

(1800-1802),  which  was  to  have  been  followed  by  a  fifth.  The 
latter  gave  to  his  historical  inquiry  an  apologetic  and  practical 
character,  but  a  more  independent  position  was  taken  by  AM- 
MON  in  his  "Sketch  of  a  pure  Biblical  Theology"  (Erlang.  1792), 
and  his  "  Biblical  Theology  "  (3e  Th.  2«  Aufl.  1801  u.  1802).  In 
his  view  Biblical  Theology  is  obliged  merely  to  furnish  "  the 
materials,  fundamental  ideas  and  results  of  the  Bible,  without 
troubling  itself  about  their  connection,  or  combining  them  into  an 
artificial  system."  "That  work,"  he  says,  "belongs  exclusively 
to  the  Systematic  theologian,  who  links  these  results  together." 
Whether  the  business  of  the  "Systematic  theologian"  is  so 
simple  as  these  words  would  indicate,  it  is  not  necessary  for  us 
here  to  inquire ;  it  is  enough  that  AMMON  has  expressed  the  con- 
ception of  the  historical  character  of  our  science.  This  was  done 
still  more  distinctly  by  KAYSER  in  his  "Biblical  Theology,  or 
Judaism  and  Christianity  "  (Erlang.  1813-14),  but  especially  by 
DEWETTE,  Professor  at  Basle  (d.  1850),  who,  though  not  so 
much  in  respect  to  results  as  to  method,  has  rendered  to  it  the 
most  important  service.  He  placed  Biblical  Dogmatics  beside, 
and  in  certain  respects  in  opposition  to,  the  doctrinal  system  of 
the  Lutheran  Church,  and  distinguished  in  the  former,  better 
than  had  been  done  before,  between  the  ideas  of  Hebraism  and 
those  of  Judaism,  and  between  the  doctrinal  teachings  of  Jesus 
and  those  of  the  Apostles.  He  inquired  first  of  all,  not  whether 
his  own  views  agreed  with  the  statements  of  the  Scriptures,  but 
what  these  statements  are :  how  they  had  been  developed  out 
of  and  beside  each  other,  and  in  what  connection  they  stood 
with  the  particular  ideas  of  the  age  in  which  they  were  first 
expressed.  Undoubtedly  this  work  has  its  weaker  sides  also : 
Biblical  Theology  is  still  too  much  Biblical  Dogmatics  in  the 
strictest  sense  of  the  word,  and  the  peculiar  philosophical  views 
of  the  author  (he  belonged  to  the  school  of  FRIES)  had  alto- 
gether too  much  influence  upon  the  historical  presentation. 
Notwithstanding  this,  however,  he  took  gigantic  steps  in  the 
right  direction  and  laid  a  foundation  on  which  others  could  suc- 
cessfully build.  This  was  done  to  a  certain  degree,  though 
in  a  less  happy  form,  by  BAUMGARTEN-CRUSIUS,  Professor  at 
Jena,  in  his  "Fundamental  Outlines  of  Biblical  Theology" 
(1828),  by  CRAMER,  "Lectures  on  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the 


10  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

New  Testament"  (edited  by  NAEBE,  Leipzig,  1830,)  and  on  a 
much  broader  scale,  by  VAN  COELLN,  Professor  at  Breslau, 
whose  "Biblical  Theology"  was  issued  after  his  death  in  the 
year  1836,  in  two  volumes,  by  Dr.  D.  SCHULZ. 

Meanwhile,  the  rationalistic  or  semi-rationalistic  direction  in 
theology  was  not  the  only  one  which  devoted  itself  with  manifest 
earnestness  to  the  study  of  this  branch  of  science.  On  the 
supranaturalistic  side  also,  it  was  cultivated  by  men  of  ability. 
Within  the  second  quarter  of  the  present  century,  attention  be- 
gan to  be  more  particularly  directed  to  the  theology  of  the  Old 
Testament  The  works  on  this  subject  by  STEUDEL  (1840), 
OEHLER  (1840),  and  especially  HAVEENTCK  (1848),  deserve  to  be 
honorably  mentioned.  In  respect  to  the  New  Testament  our  sci- 
ence owes  an  undeniable  debt  to  the  never  to  be  forgotten  NEAN- 
DEK  (d.  1850).  In  the  first  part  of  his  "  Life  of  Jesus  "  (1st  ed. 
1837)  he  gave  a  masterly  historical  sketch  of  the  doctrinal  teach- 
ings of  the  Saviour,  as  exhibited  in  his  parables,  as  previously, 
with  rare  skill,  in  his  "  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Apostolic 
Church  "  (1st  ed.,  1832)  he  had  clearly  set  forth  the  doctrinal 
teachings  of  the  different  apostolic  writers.  He  brought  out  the 
nice  shades  in  the  peculiarity  of  each,  but  exhibited  also  their 
higher  unity,  and  endeavored  especially  to  show  "how,  notwith- 
standing all  the  differences  between  them,  a  profound  unity  in 
essentials  remains,  if  we  do  not  allow  ourselves  to  be  deceived 
by  the  form,  and  how  even  the  form  explains  itself  in  its  diver- 
sity." The  weaker  sides  of  Neander's  presentation  are  avoided 
in  one  of  the  best  works  which  we  have  to  name,  SCHMID, 
"Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament"  edited  after  his 
death  by  Dr.  C.  WEIZACKER  (1853),  of  which  a  new  edition  ap- 
peared in  1864.  He  clearly  presents  in  an  objective  form  the 
theology  of  the  New  Testament,  and  penetrates  with  uncon- 
cealed sympathy  into  the  depths  of  the  organism  of  the  different 
doctrines,  prefixing  to  the  whole  at  some  length  an  account  of 
the  life  of  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles.  If  the  latter  feature  is 
not  to  be  commended  (comp.  §  1.  3),  still  his  work  is  much  su- 
perior to  the  uncompleted  "  Theology  of  the  New  Testament" 
(Leipz.  1854,  Bd.  I,)  by  Dr.  G.  L.  HAHN.  The  latter  treats  only 
of  the  fundamental  ideas  concerning  God  and  the  world  which 
form  the  common  basis  of  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  our  Lord 


History  and  Literature.  11 

and  his  Apostles,  without  making  a  proper  distinction  between 
the  different  types  of  doctrine  and  even  tropes ;  it  clearly  ex- 
hibits, indeed,  the  unity  of  the  above  named  doctrines,  but 
•  without  paying  proper  attention  to  the  difference,  in  the  devel- 
opment of  doctrines,  among  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
In  respect  mor.e  particularly  to  the  theology  of  the  Apostles  we 
mention  with  commendation,  MESSNER,  "  The  Doctrine  of  the 
Apostles  "  (Berl.  1850),*  a  book  occasionally  somewhat  heavy, 
but  rich  in  contents  and  composed  on  a  good  plan,  and  espe- 
cially LECHLER,  "The  Apostolic  and  Post  -  Apostolic  Age  with 
reference  to  Diversity  and  Unity  in  doctrine  and  life,"  which 
was  crowned  by  the  directors  of  the  Teyler  Foundation  in  1848. 
In  1857  it  was  issued  a  second  time,  so  much  enlarged  and  im- 
provedf  that  it  may  be  called  almost  a  new  work.  The  special 
literature  of  the  Petrine,  Pauline  and  Johannean  theology  will 
be  mentioned  in  its  proper  place.  The  necessity  of  some  con- 
siderable modifications  in  the  treatment  of  the  theological 
teachings  of  Jesus  in  consequence  of  the  criticism  of  STRAUSS 
and  the  Tubingen  School  was  a  natural  result  of  the  spirit  of 
the  age  and  is  evident,  also,  from  numerous  examples. 

Upon  the  whole  it  must  not  be  assumed  that,  even  where  the 
purely  historical  character  of  our  science  has  been  known  and 
maintained,  the  theological  and  philosophical  views  of  those 
who  cultivated  it,  have  not  exercised  a  great  influence  upon  the 
mode  of  its  treatment.  How  injurious  has  been  the  influence 
of  the  Hegelian  philosophy  upon  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the 
Old  Testament  may  be  seen  in  the  work  of  VATKE  (1835), 
whose  a  priori  construction  of  doctrine  and  history  was  opposed 
but  not  improved  by  BRUNO  BAUER  in  his  "  Religion  of  the  Old 
Testament"  (Berlin,  1838,  1839). 

In  regard  to  the  New  Testament,  we  should  be  able  to  com- 
mend more  highly  EEUSS'S  in  many  respects  excellent  Histoire 
de  la  Theol  Chret.  du  Siecle  Apostol  (Strasb.  1852,  last  ed., 
1864),  if  its  clearness  and  fulness  were  equalled  by  strict  ob- 
jectivity of  statement.  But  in  the  grouping,  and  here  and 

*  A  Dutch  translation  of  this  work  has  been  published,  with  an  introduction  by 
Prof.  HOEKSTRA.  [An  abstract  of  it  will  also  be  found  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra, 
Oct.,  1869  and  Jan.,  1870.— TV.] 

f  Comp.  a  review  by  the  author  of  this  work  in  the  Jaarbb.  voor  Wet.  TJieol 
(1852,  Deel  x.  bL  561-582). 


12  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

there  in  the  treatment  of  his  material  and  his  final  judgment 
upon  it,  a  certain  degree  of  sympathy  with  the  Tubingen  con- 
struction of  the  early  Church  History  cannot  escape  notice,  and 
still  further  his  inquiry  extends  beyond  the  limit  of  the  New 
Testament, — a  fact  not  favorable  to  a  recognition  of  the  special 
value  of  its  contents.     To  a  far  greater  degree  does  this  remark 
hold  true  of  the  work  of  the  head  of  the  Tubingen  School,  Dr. 
R    C.    BAUR,    "Lectures  on  New    Testament    Theology"    pub- 
lished after  his  death  by  his  son  (1864),  in  which  the  light  and 
dark  sides  of  this  direction  appear,  so  to  speak,  in  a  concen- 
trated form.     The  whole  of  the  rich  material  of  the  theology 
of  the  New  Testament  is  divided  by  BAUR,  after  having  sepa- 
rately considered  the  doctrinal  teachings  of  Jesus,  into  three 
distinct  periods.     In  the  first  he  places  the  four  epistles  of 
Paul  [Komans,  Galatians,  I  and  II  Corinthians],  regarded  by 
him  as  genuine,  together  with  the  Apocalypse,  and  discusses 
their  importance.     In  the  second  follow  :  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, the  smaller  Pauline  Epistles  (with  the  exception  of  those 
to  Timothy  and  Titus),  with  the  addition  of  those  of  Peter  and 
James,  the  Synoptical  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
In  the  third,  finally,  the  doctrinal   teachings  of  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  and  the  writings  of  John,  which,  according  to  BAUR,  are 
by  far  the  latest  of  the  Sacred  Canon.     Thus  the  whole  con- 
ception and   method  rest  upon  a  kind  of  Introduction  and 
Criticism,  which  no  one,  perhaps,  would  style  impartial.     Still 
more  arbitrarily  and  with  much  less  ability  has  NOACK  in  his 
"Biblical    and    Theological  Introduction   to   the    Old  and   New 
Testaments  "  (Halle,  1853),  attempted  the  reconstruction  of  the 
history  from  the  same  position.  —  From  the  Koman  Catholic 
side  an  important  contribution  to  our  science  was  made  in  Ger- 
many by  LUTTERBECK,  in  his  "Doctrinal  Teachings  of  the  New 
Testament,  or  Investigations  into  the  age  of  religious  transition,  the 
steps  preparatory  to   Christianity  and  its  earliest  form  (2   Thle. 
Mainz,  1852).      It  is  a  thesaurus  of  materials,  but  the  writer 
himself  has  entitled  it  a  "  Handbook  of  the  most  Ancient  Doc- 
trinal   and    Systematic  Exegesis  of  the  New   Testament,"    while 
leaving  wholly  untouched  the  doctrinal  teachings  of  our  Lord 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  incorporating  much  which  does  not 
directly  pertain  to  the  subject. 


History  and  Literature.  13 

In  the  Netherlands,  while  much  comparatively  has  been  con- 
tributed toward   biblical   and   evangelical   doctrinal  theology 
(MUNTINGHE,  EGELING,  HERINGA,  VINKE),  little  has  been  done 
for  the  scientific,  and  purely  historical  treatment  of  the  Theology 
of  the  New  Testament.     From  the  stand-point  of  the  Groningen 
School  a  number  of  important  contributions  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  doctrinal  teachings  of  Paul  and  the  other  Apostles  were 
published  in  the  earlier  volumes  of  Waarheid  en  Liefde.     J.  H. 
SCHOLTEN,  Professor  in  Leyden,  has  placed  in  the  hands  of  his 
pupils  a  valuable  compend  in  his  "  History  of  Christian  Theology 
during  the  Period  of  the  New  Testament"  (2e  uitg.,  Leyden,  1858), 
in  which  the  well  known  clearness  and  acuteness  of  the  author 
are  as  manifest  as  is  the  influence  of  his  peculiar  doctrinal 
views.     An  important  contribution  was  made  to  Biblical  The- 
ology by  Dr.  A.  H.  BLOM,  in  his  work  entitled  "  The  Doctrine  of 
the  Messiahs  Kingdom  among  the  first  Christians,  according  to  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  "  (Dortr.,  1863),  a  treatise  in  which  the  claim 
of  rigid  objectivity  is  not  made  without  reason.     In  a  popular 
and  at  the  same  time  scientific  way,  the  writer  of  the  present 
work  has  endeavored  to  exhibit  distinctly  the  "  Christology  of  the 
New  Testament"  (Eotterdam,  1857).     A  careful  and  thorough 
"  Historical  and  Expository  Inquiry  concerning  Eschatology,  or  the 
doctrine  of  Future  Things  according  to  the  writings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment," was  published  by  J.  P.  BRIET  (2  DeeL,  Thiel,  1857,  58). 
4.  At  the  close  of  our  historical  survey  we  see  that  it  is  in 
no  wise  impossible  to  treat  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New 
Testament  as  a  distinct  science,  and  that  a  new  attempt  to  de- 
velop and  complete  this  science  is  not  superfluous.     It  is  fully 
evident  that  its  claims  are  better  met  the  more  clearly  its  objec- 
tive and  historical  character  is  recognized,  while  on  the  other 
hand  a  premature  mingling  of  individual  dogmatic  and  philo- 
sophical  opinions  can  only  result  in  essential  injury  to  it. 
In  the  history  of  the  past,  men  have  struck  by  turns  upon  one  or 
the  other  of  these  two  rocks :  they  have  either  sacrificed  on  the 
one  hand  the  undeniable  diversity  of  the  doctrinal  teachings  to 
the  maintenance  of  a  conceptional  unity,  or,  on  the  other,  the 
higher  unity  to  the  maintenance  of  a  quite  too  strongly  marked 
diversity.     The  first  took  place,  especially  at  an  earlier  period, 
under  the  influence  of  the  current  dogmatism :  the  latter  is  more 


14  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

frequently  found  in  our  time  under  the  influence  of  the  criticism 
at  present  in  vogue.  True  wisdom  demands  that  in  avoiding 
Scylla  we  keep  clear  of  Charybdis.  But  this  leads  to  the  fol- 
lowing Section. 

Comp.  on  the  subject  of  this,  KEUSS,  Histoire  de  la  Theol. 
Chret,  I,  pp.  13-28,  and  BAUR,  Vorlesungen  uber  N.  T.  Theologie 
S.  1-44 

Questions  for  consideration. — To  what  is  it  to  be  ascribed  that 
the  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament  is  such  a  compar- 
atively recent  science? — "What  beneficial  and  what  injurious 
influence  has  the  Tubingen  School  had  upon  its  development  ? 
— Is  it  possible  and  necessary  to  keep  its  cultivation  free  from 
the  influence  of  a  definite  system  of  Christian  philosophy  ? 

§3. 

Its  Method,  Main  Divisions  and  Demands. 

The  method  of  our  investigation  can  be  no  other,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  than  the  genetic,  chronological,  and  analyti- 
cal. The  main  divisions  of  the  subject  are  determined  by  the 
peculiarity  and  the  mutual  connection  of  the  different  doctrines 
taught  in  the  New  Testament.  In  order  that  the  treatment  of 
them  may  correspond  with  their  design,  it  must  be  conducted 
in  a  really  scientific  manner  and  also  in  a  genuine  Christian  spirit. 

1.  In  every  science,  the  question  in  respect  to  the  method  of 
its  treatment  is  of  very  great  importance.  The  entire  value  of 
a  result  depends  upon  the  legitimacy  of  the  process  by  which 
it  was  reached.  It  is  equally  clear  that  the  method  of  every 
science  is  determined  by  its  special  character.  As  a  part  of 
historical  theology,  our  science  can  be  subject  to  no  other  laws 
than  those  which  govern  every  historical  inquiry.  The  method 
must  consequently  be  genetic,  i.  e.,  it  must  take  into  view,  not 
only  the  contents,  but  also  the  process  of  production  (genesis)  of 
the  different  ideas.  In  this  process  historico-psychological  exege- 
sis, especially,  will  render  good  service.  Next,  chronological ;  for 


Method,  Divisions  and  Demands.  15 

we  find  in  the  New  Testament,  a  collection  of  writings  and 
ideas,  which  gradually  arose,  and  were  developed  in  many  cases 
under  the  mutual  influence  of  one  writer  upon  another,  while 
even  the  interior  process  of  development  in  one  and  the  same 
author  (Paul,  for  instance)  was  in  no  wise  at  a  stand  for  an  en- 
tire series  of  years.  "History  is  a  development  of  life"  (ScHMiD). 
Here  the  well  known  direction  "  distingue  tempora "  is  to  be 
carefully  borne  in  mind.  Finally,  analytic  or  disjunctive.  Our 
inquiry  is  not  at  the  outset  concerning  the  doctrinal  teaching 
of  the  Apostolic  age  as  a  whole,  but  concerning  that  of  the  in- 
dividual New  Testament  writings.  It  is  true,  we  must  strive 
to  grasp  the  higher  unity,  but  this  stands  forth  clearly  only 
when  unmistakable  diversity  has  been  previously  exhibited. 
The  synthesis  has  no  value,  if  the  analysis  was  not  pure. 
"  It  is  from  analysis  that  we  seek  for  the  light,  which 
shall  illumine  our  path :  from  analysis,  which  teaches  the 
historian  to  forget  himself  in  order  not  to  be  untrue  to  his  sub- 
ject, which  knows  how  to  respect  the  particular  character  of 
each  fact,  each  idea  which  it  meets,  which  recognizes  in  every 
epoch,  every  group,  every  individual  even,  however  small,  its 
right  to  a  place  in  the  mirror  of  history,  as  it  once  had  in  actual 
life."  (EEUSS.) 

2.  The  main  divisions  of  the  department  on  which  we  enter, 
are  substantially  indicated  by  what  has  been  already  said. 
First  of  all,  we  must  distinguish  between  the  doctrinal  teachings 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  those  of  the  Apostolic  writers,  and 
speak  of  the  former  before  we  take  up  the  latter.  In  the  first 
named,  the  difference  between  the  sayings  of  our  Lord  in  the 
three  first  Gospels  and  in  the  Gospel  of  John  comes  before  us. 
The  present  state  of  science  demands  that  we  study  both  sep- 
arately, and  listen  first  to  the  Christ  of  the  Synoptical  gospels, 
and  then  of  John,  in  order  finally  to  inquire  how  the  words  of 
both  stand  mutually  related  to  each  other. — The  study  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Apostles  demands  a  similiar  separation,  which  is 
in  this  case  threefold.  Peter,  Paul,  John, — these  three  and  in 
this  succession,  —  give,  one  after  the  other,  their  testimony. 
Around  these  figures  others  group  themselves,  who  exhibit  a 
more  or  less  noticeable  affinity  of  thought  with  them  and  their 
ideas.  Thus  to  the  Petrine  theology  belong  the  doctrinal  teaeh- 


16  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

ings  of  the  epistles  of  James  and  Jude,  to  which  also  must  be 
reckoned  those  of  the  gospels  according  to  Matthew  and  Mark. 
Around  Paul  gather  successively  Stehpen,  his  forerunner ;  Luke, 
his  fellow-laborer ;  and  the  writer  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
of  a  spirit  akin  to  his.  John  stands  alone ;  but  the  John  of  the 
fourth  gospel  and  the  epistles  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  John  of 
the  Apocalypse  on  the  other,  are  sufficiently  different  to  justify 
us  in  attending  to  them  separately. 

Within  these  two  main  divisions  the  materials  for  our  inves- 
tigation are  included,  but  not  to  the  exclusion  of  certain  pre- 
liminary considerations.  We  cannot  understand  the  instructions 
of  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles,  unless  we  are  familiar,  at  least  in 
general,  with  the  soil  from  which  the  plant  sprung.  An  intro- 
ductory chapter,  therefore,  must  precede  both  of  these,  which 
shall  treat,  not  indeed  of  the  entire  theology  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  of  the  religion  from  the  bosom  of  which  Christianity 
came ;  of  the  expectations  of  which  it  is  the  realization ;  and 
finally  of  the  condition,  the  ideas  and  the  wants  of  the  age  in 
which  our  Lord  and  his  disciples  appeared ;  in  other  words,  of 
Mosaism,  Prophetism,  and  Judaism  (as  distinguished  from  the 
earlier  Hebraism).  The  contents  of  this  first  part,  merely  pre- 
paratory, but  yet  indispensable,  we  may  best  comprise  under 
the  name  of  Old  Testament  foundation.  Next  follow,  secondly, 
the  theology  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  then,  thirdly,  that  of  the 
Apostles,  according  to  the  plan  indicated  above.  But  is  our 
investigation  with  this  completed  ?  Not  more  than  is  a  build- 
ing, the  foundations  of  which  are  laid,  and  the  walls  carried 
up  to  the  required  height,  but  which  still  lacks  roof  and  gable. 
In  a  fourth  or  last  chapter,  the  synthesis  of  the  now  completed 
analysis  must  be  sought,  or,  in  other  words,  the  higher  unity  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Apostles  with  each  other,  and  of  all  of  them  with 
those  of  our  Lord,  must  be  brought  out.  It  is  thus  only  that  the 
Theology  of  the  New  Testament  rises  before  us  like  a  well  con- 
structed edifice.  "  Thus  will  the  New  Testament  theology  have 
the  task  of  developing  the  organic  connection  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament doctrine  "  (ScHMiD).  It  is  only  here  that  we  can  perma- 
nently stand.  And  now  if  it  is  manifest,  that  none  of  the 
leading  divisions  which  have  been  indicated  can  be  either 
omitted,  or  differently  placed  and  arranged,  without  the  de- 


Method,  Divisions  and  Demands.  17 

struction  of  harmony,  the  propriety  and  correctness  of  our  main 
division  will  be  justified. 

3.  The  demand,  that  the  inquiry  to  be  instituted  shall  be  at 
once  scientific  and  Christian,  no  one,  in  this  general  form,  will 
deny.  Nevertheless  a  single  word  of  explanation  will  not  be 
superfluous. 

An  investigation  is  scientific,  when  it  corresponds  to  the  de- 
mands of  science  in  general  and  is  in  harmony  with  the  partic- 
ular science  which  it  seeks  to  advance.  "Science  is.  well 
grounded  knowledge,  the  fruit  of  correct  observation  and  phi- 
losophical investigation  "  (MULDER).  Theological  Science,,  con- 
sequently, is  well  grounded  and  well  arranged  knowledge  of 
God  and  divine  things,  drawn  from  those  sources  from  which 
they  can  manifestly  be  known.  In  its  investigation,  it  obtains 
light  by  means  of  faith  in  God  and  his  revelation,  but  this 
faith,  so  far  from  extinguishing  or  fettering  the  spirit  of  inves- 
tigation, stimulates  it  and  give  to  it  the  most  legitimate  direc- 
tion. It  is  a  proper  condition  of  this  investigation  also,  that  it 
be  fundamental,  accurate,  complete,  impartial  and  truth-loving. 
This  impartiality,  however,  must  not  be  conceived  of  as  a  de- 
liberate denying  and  forgetting  of  all  the  principles  from  which 
men  start  on  other  subjects  (expressed  by  the  German  word 
VorausetzungslosigTceit),  for  this  is  neither  necessary  nor  possible. 
It  demands  rather  that  with  a  candid  mind  and  spirit,  we  hold 
ourselves  open  to  every  impression,  and  desire  nothing  except 
the  truth,  whether  it  accords  with  our  private  and  cherished 
opinions  or  not  Such  a  love  of  the  truth,  which  becomes  no  one 
more  than  the  student  of  theological  science,  naturally  allies 
itself  with  the  moral  earnestness  which  should  least  of  all  be 
wanting  in  an  investigation  like  ours.  So  far  it  can  be  said 
that  the  true  scientific  spirit  is  not  merely  a  direction  of  the 
intellect,  but  of  the  whole  mental  and  moral  life,  so  that, 
like  eloquence,  it  may  be  called  not  simply  a  gift,  but  also  a 
virtue. 

This  scientific  investigation  will  at  the  same  time  be  Christian, 
when  it  is  commenced  and  prosecuted,  first,  from  a  Christian 
point  of  view.  It  is  impossible  in  studying  the  doctrinal  teach- 
ings of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  not  to  remember  the  great  sig- 
nificance of  the  New  Testament  in  respect  to  the  religious  and 
2* 


18  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

Christian  life.  The  theologian  who  is  truly  Christian  cannot 
forsake  his  faith  on  entering  the  field  of  science.  Neither  is 
this  demanded :  believing  leads  here,  too,  to  better  knowing, 
as  the  latter  in  turn  places  us  in  a  better  condition  to  be- 
lieve (1  John  5,  13).  Still,  we  must  not  allow  the  Christian 
and  ecclesiastical  points  of  view  to  become  confounded.  The 
Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  are  now  to  be  exclusively 
regarded  and  consulted  as  historical  documents ;  the  question 
whether  they  are  more  than  this,  and  in  what  relation  they 
stand  and  must  stand  to  the  faith  and  life  of  the  Christian, 
belongs  exclusively  to  the  department  of  Christian  Dogmatics, 
and  consequently  remains  here  untouched.  In  the  second  place, 
our  inquiry  must  be  conducted  in  a  Christian  spirit,  that  is,  in 
the  spirit  of  genuine  humility,  which  is  conscious  of  the  limita- 
tion of  our  powers :  of  a  living  faith,  which  seeks  with  growing 
earnestness,  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  God : 
and  most  of  all,  of  warm  love  to  the  Gospel,  which  easily  and 
willingly  comes  into  sympathy  with  the  spirit  of  the  sacred 
writers,— a  condition  indispensable  to  profounder  knowledge. 
Finally,  our  inquiry  must  have  a  Christian  aim  —  personal 
sanctification  through  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  the  upbuild- 
ing of  the  kingdom  of  God  around  us,  and  thereby,  above  all, 
the  glory  of  Him  to  whom  are  all  things,  the  sphere  of  science 
not  excepted.  Comp.  SCHENKEL,  Christl  Dogmn  S.  61.  ff., 
NITZSCH,  in  HEKZOG'S  Real-Encycl  II.  S.  225. 

Questions  for  Consideration :  The  importance  of  method  in  the 
department  of  theology. — Criticism  of  some  other  divisions  and 
subdivisions. — How  far  is  complete  impartiality  in  our  investi- 
gation indispensable,  possible,  desirable  ? — Is  a  purely  historical 
inquiry,  such  as  is  here  proposed,  entirely  compatible  with 
the  reverence  which  we  owe  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  ? 


PART  I. 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  FOUNDATION. 


§4- 

Mosaism. 

Mosaism  is  the  religious  and  political  constitution  given 
through  Moses  to  the  people  of  Israel,  and  in  consequence  of 
which  it  has  occupied  an  entirely  peculiar  position  in  the  history 
of  the  development  of  the  religious  life  of  mankind.  The 
chief  source  of  knowledge  respecting  it  is  the  Canonical  Script- 
ures of  the  Old  Testament;  its  foundation,  a  special  divine 
revelation ;  its  character,  monotheistic ;  its  form,  theocratic ; 
its  worship,  symbolico- typical ;  its  tendency  purely  moral ;  its 
stand-point,  that  of  external  authority,  but  at  the  same  time  of 
conscious  preparation  for  higher  development. 

1.  The  theology  of  the  New  Testament  rests  entirely  upon 
the  foundation  of  the  Old  Testament.     The  gospel  is  unintel- 
ligible in  respect  to  its  contents  and  form,  without  a  knowledge 
of  the  prophetical  Scriptures.      These  in  turn  point  back  to 
Moses  and  the  religion  founded  by  him  (Comp.  John  4,  22  ; 
2  Tim.  3,  15). 

2.  That  the  Israelitish  people  occupied  an  entirely  peculiar 
position  in  the  history  of  religion  no  one  will  deny.     In  com- 
merce and  luxury  it  was  inferior  to  the  Phenicians,  in  art  and 
science  to  the  Greeks,  in  valor  to  the  Komans   and   others. 
In  the  sphere  of  religion,  on  the  other  hand,  we  meet  in  Israel 
ideas,  institutions,  expectations,  which  in  this  form  we  nowhere 
else  find ;  historical  figures,  the  counterpart  of  which  we  else- 
where seek  in  vain ;  and  most  of  all,  a  consciousness  of  itself, 
which  must  have  been  simply  the  fruit  of  unbounded  arrogance 


20  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

or  else  a  priceless  prerogative  (Dent.  4,  7;  33,  29.  Ps.  89,  16;  147, 
19.  20.)  The  objective  and  subjective  eminence,  on  which 
Israel  stood,  can  be  explained  only  from  Mosaism. 

3.  In  order  to  a  right  knowledge  and  judgment  of  Mosaism, 
a  knowledge  of  Moses  himself  is  necessary.     This  is  derived 
partly  from  profane  sources  (Egyptian,  Greek,  Roman,)  and 
partly  from  sacred,  especially  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  most  of  all  the  Pentateuch.     Not  all,  however,  is 
purely  Mosaic  which  has  named  itself  after  Moses,  just  as  all  is 
not  Christian  which  is  connected  with  the  name  of  Christ,     It  is 
the  important  and  indispensable  work  entrusted  to  thorough 
criticism  to  distinguish  the  original  Mosaic  elements  from  what 
was  afterwards  added,  either  in  the  way  of  development  or  of 
deterioration. 

4.  With  all  which  Moses  has  in  common  with  the  founders 
of  other  ancient  religions,  his  personal  character  and  work  re- 
main perfectly  inexplicable,  if  he  was  not  the  interpreter  and 
agent  of  a  special  divine  revelation.     The  definition,  possibility, 
reality  and  criteria  of  this  special  revelation  are  presented  in 
Doctrinal  Theology.     Biblical  Theology  affirms  simply  the  fact, 
that  Moses  appeared  as  an  extraordinary  ambassador  from  God 
(Num.  12,  6-8),  was  recognized  as  such  by  contemporaries  and 
posterity,  (Deut.  34,  10-12),  and  also  by  Jesus  and  the  Apostles 
(Matt.  15,  3-6 ;  Rom.  3,  2),  and  that  he  demonstrated  the  divin- 
ity of  his  mission,  not  merely  by  miracles  and  prophecies,  but 
especially  by  the  internal  excellence  of  his  religious  teachings, 
which  it  has  never  been  possible  to  explain  on  merely  natural 
grounds.     The  divine  revelation,  however,  made  to  Moses,  had 
its  root,  in  turn,  in  an  earlier  revelation,  the  origin  of  which 
goes  back  into  remote  antiquity  (Ex.  2,  24.  25).     It  is  only  from 
the  stand-point  of  Supranaturalistic  Theism  that  Mosaism  can 
be  comprehended. 

5.  Mosaism  bears  from  the  beginning  a  strictly  monotheistic 
character.     It  exhibits  Jehovah,  not  merely  as  the  supreme,  but 
as  the  only  God  (Deut.  6,  4)  beside  whom,  to  no  other  creature 
in  heaven  or  on  earth  can  religious  worship  justly  be  paid. 
Although  Israel  became  guilty  of  idolatry  in  the  wilderness 
and  afterwards  (Amos  5,  25-27),  this  crime  was  committed  in 
direct  conflict  with  the  the  Mosaic  law,  which  threatened  it 
with  death.     There  is  no  better  ground  for  assuming  that  this 


Mosaism.  21 

monotheism  gradually  sprang  from  an  earlier  polytheism,  than 
for  explaining  it  from  the  peculiarity  of  the  Semitic  race. 
"That  which  is  controlling  in  the  history  of  the  Jews,  is  not 
race,  but  religion ;  two  distinct  things,  which  do  not  mutu- 
ally explain  each  other "  (LA  BOULAYE).  Everything  obliges 
us,  rather,  in  some  form  or  other,  to  think  of  a  personal  divine 
revelation,  made  to  the  ancestors  of  the  nation,  forgotten  by 
their  posterity  in  Egypt,  revived  through  Moses,  and  enlarged 
in  Mosaism  by  the  addition  of  new  elements.  In  consequence 
of  this  revelation,  Israel  knows  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth, 
the  Almighty  Creator  of  the  universe,  in  his  unity,  majesty, 
spiritual  nature  and  spotless  holiness,  united  with  mercy  and 
faithfulness.  This  truth  is  the  centre  around  which  all  re- 
volves: "the  doctrine  of  doctrines."  The  knowledge  of  it 
raises  Israel  above  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  is  the  un- 
changeable pledge  of  national  and  personal  prosperity.  The 
expectation  of  the  latter,  however,  as  a  general  rule,  ex- 
tends no  further  than  this  side  the  grave  (Ex.  20,  12).  Finally, 
however  much  the  hope  of  individuals  even  in  death  may  have 
clung  to  Him  who  lives  eternally,  life  and  immortality  have 
been  brought  to  light  only  by  the  gospel  (2  Tim.  1,  10). 

6.  The  covenant  which  God,  in  accordance  with  his  promises, 
made  to  Israel  through  Moses  as  a  mediator  was  the  foundation 
of  the  Theocracy.  This  word  has  come  down  to  us  from  JOSE- 
PHUS  (Contra  Apion.  II,  16);  this  institution  itself  can  neither 
be  regarded  as  an  imitation  of  other  forms  of  religion,  e.  g. 
Egyptian ;  nor  as  a  natural  product  sprung  from  a  narrow  par. 
ticularism ;  nor  as  an  involuntary  reaction  against  heathenism. 
It  was  the  free  and  gracious  choice  of  Him,  who,  although  he  is 
Lord  of  the  whole  creation,  made  Israel  the  people  of  his  own 
possession.  The  covenant  act  of  the  theocracy,  thus  founded, 
was  the  giving  of  the  law  on  Sinai ;  its  seat  the  sanctuary :  its 
limit,  not  the  rise  of  the  kingly  power,  by  which  it  was  merely 
modified,  but  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth :  its 
culminating  blessing,  the  appearance  of  Him  who  cast  down 
the  separating  wall  between  Israel  and  the  nations.  It  is 
only  as  we  recognize  this  theocratic  character,  that  the  history  of 
Israel  and  the  steadily  progressive  development  of  the  supreme 
majesty  of  God  becomes  credible  or  to  a  certain  degree  com- 
prehensible. 


22  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

7.  God  will  not  only  be  known  by  Israel  as  the  God  of  the 
covenant,  but  also  be  solemnly  worshiped  in  a  way  acceptable 
to  Him.     This  worship,  prescribed  through  Moses,  exhibits  a 
symbolico-typical  character  (Col.  2,  16.  Ep.  to  the  Heb.).     Its 
external  forms  are  the  visible  expression  of  higher  religious 
ideas ;   its  present   ceremonies  at  the  same  time  a  shadowing 
forth  of  future   persons  and  things  (Typi  personates  et  reales). 
Types  and  symbols  are  by  no  means  identical.     Symbol  stands 
related  to  thought,  as  being  its  expression  to  the  senses  :  type  to 
antitype,  as  the  shadow  to  the  reality.     The  symbol  represents^ 
the  invisible;   the  type  prefigures  what  is  yet  hidden.      The 
one  and  the  other  we  see  united  in  the  principal  religious  act' 
of  Mosaism,  as  of  every  [ancient]  religion — sacrifice.     It  is  a 
symbol  of  voluntary  consecration  to  God,  and  the  sin-offering, 
particularly,  is  a  type  of  the  complete  sacrifice  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament.    "  The  idea  of  the  typical  is  inseparable  from  the  idea 
of  a  theological   development,  where  the  present  is  in  birth 
with  the  future  "  (MAKTENSEN).     Kules  for  the  fuller  explana- 
tion of  particulars  are  given  in  [works  on]  the  Symbolism  and 
Types  of  the  Old  Testament. 

8.  Since,  therefore,  Mosaism  is  a  lofty  accommodation  to  the 
undeveloped   condition  of  the   nation,    its   tendency   may   be 
called  purely  moral.     The  religious  and  the  ethical  elements 
are  here  most  intimately  blended.     The  spotless  holinsss  of  the 
King  of  Israel  is  also  the  highest  ideal  for  the  subject  (Lev.  19, 
2).     The  lively  feeling  of  personal  unholiness,  the  need  of  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  the  desire  gratefully  to  glorify  God,  is  at 
one  and  the  same  time  quickened  and  satisfied  by  the  sacrificial 
worship,  and  the  spirit  of  love,  mercy,  and  humanity  is  nour- 
ished even  under  the  extremely  rigid  particularism  of  a  legis- 
lation, which  manifestly  aimed,  even  in  the  minutest  particu- 
lars, to  unite  religion  and  life  most  intimately  together.     It  has 
been  incorrectly  held  that  the  Mosaic  economy  of  redemption 
is  founded  only  on  legalism  and  not  upon  real  morality,  since  it 
requires  merely  external  acts  and  not  an  internal  principle.     But 
the  very  opening  of  the  decalogue  shows  the  contrary  (Ex.  20, 
2) ;  however  frequently  Jehovah  threatens,  love  to  him  always 
stands  in  the  foreground  (Deut.  6,  5) ;  and  when  Jesus  compre- 
hended the  whole  law  in  this  one  requirement,  the  Israelitish 


Mosaism.  23 

conscience  testified  at  once  to  the  entire  correctness  of  his  in- 
terpretation (Mark  12,  28-34).  What,  in  itself  considered, 
might  appear  to  be  more  or  less  inconsistent  with  the  strictly 
moral  character  of  Mosaism  (see  e.  g.  Ex.  3,  21.  22 ;  1  Sam.  15, 
3),  is  to  be  explained  with  an  eye  upon  the  whole,  in  the  light 
of  the  age,  and  in  connection  with  the  special  government  of 
God. 

9.  It  was  impossible  for  the  law,  however,  to  effect  the  ful- 
fillment of  its  righteous  requirement  in  sinful  man.     Its  stand- 
point was  that  of  external  authority,  like  the  relation  of  the 
schoolmaster  to  the  intractable  youth  in  his  minority  (GaL  4, 
1.  2).     In  Mosaism  man  stands  toward  God,  not  as  a  child  to 
his  father,  but  as  a  subject  to  his  king,  or  as  a  criminal  to  the 
judge.     By  far  the  most  of  the  commandments,  consequently, 
are  of  a  prohibitive  nature  (Col.  2,  21) ;  as  life  is  connected 
with  obedience,  so  death  is  threatened  to  transgression  (Gal.  3, 
10).     The  love  of  God,  indeed,  is  from  the  outset  revealed  and 
recognized  (Ex.  34,  6.  7  ;  Ps.  103,  13 ;  IK.  19,  11-13),  but  to 
the  awakened  conscience  it  usually  retires  into  the  background 
in  the  presence  of  his  holiness  and  righteousness,  which  are 
ever  calling  for  new  judgments.     While  love  to  Him,  therefore, 
is  demanded  by  the  law,  it  is  not  produced  by  it  (Rom.  8,  15). 
Mosaism  contains  even  the  promise  of  a  renewal  of  the  heart 
(Deut.  30,  6),  but  the  letter,  as  such,  kills  (2  Cor.  3,  6).     In  this 
respect  the  spirit  and  force  of  Mosaism  are  strikingly  symbol- 
ized in  the  attitude  of  the  people  at  the  giving  of  the  law  (Ex. 
20,  18-21). 

10.  Thus  regarded,  Mosaism  would  be  not  so  much  prepara- 
tory to  Christianity,  as  opposed  to  it,  if — what  must  by  no 
means  be  overlooked, — a  place  had  not  been  reserved  in  it  for 
higher  development.     But  the  same  Divine  revelation  which 
founded   Mosaism  had   given  a  promise   of  its   development 
through  prophetism  (Deut.   18,   15-18).     Mosaism  exhibits  a 
particularistic  coloring,  but  the  remembrances  of  ancient  prom- 
ises of  salvation,  which  it  inviolably  holds  (Gen.  3,  15  ;  49,  10), 
and  the  aspirations  to  which  its  interpreters  give  utterance  at 
the  height  of  their  religious  development  (Num.  11,  29 ;  IK. 
8,  41-48),  are  universal  in  their  character.     Thus  it  exhibits  a 
harmonious  unity ;  not  indeed  of  the  completed  edifice,  but  of 
the  firm  foundation  on  which  the  building  was  to  be  reared. 


24  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

Comp.  on  the  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament  in  general  the 
works  referred  to  in  §  2. — On  the  history  of  Israel  and  the  Old 
Testament,   those  of  HESS,  KALKAR,    KUKTZ,   (1853,   1858). 
[History  of  the  Old  Testament,  transl.  by  Martin,  Edinb.,  1859.     3 
vols.],  EWALD,   1851-1855.     [History  of  Israel,  transl.  by  Mar- 
tineau,  Lond.,  1858.    2  vols.]    Also  DA  COSTA,  "  Lectures  on  the 
Truth  and  Value  of  the  Old  Testament  Writings,'"  Amst.,  1844.— On 
Moses,  the  Article  of  YAIHINGER  in  HERZOG'S  Real-Encyclop., 
with  the  literature  there  cited,  and  also  the  Article  Aegypten  by 
LEPSIUS. — On  the  Old  Testament  revelation,  AUBERLIN  ["Di- 
vine Revelation  "],  translated  into  Dutch  by  G.  Barger,  Eott., 
1862   [and  into  English  by  A.  B.  Paton,  Edinb.,  1867],  TRIP, 
"  On  the  Theophanies  of  the  Old  Testament "  in  the  Works  of  the 
Hague  Society,  1856,  DILLMANN,  "  On  the   Origin  of  tfie  Old 
Testament  Religion,"   Giessen,    1845. — On  the  Theocracy,  the 
prize  essay  of  C.  Y.  YAK  KALKAR,  (Hague  Society,  1842), 
and  the  Articles  Konige,  Volk  Gottes  and  others  in  HERZOG'S 
Real-Encycl. — On  the  Mosaic  worship,  BAHR,  "  Symbolism  of  the 
Mosaic  worship,"  HeideL,  1837,  KURTZ,  "  The  Mosaic  Sacrifice" 
Mitau,  1842,  and  "  On  the  symbolical  dignity  of  numbers  and  the 
tabernacle  "  in  the  Stud.  u.  Kritik.  1844. — On  sacrifice  still  more 
particularly,  the  Article  Opfercultus  by  OEHLER,  in  HERZOG'S 
Real-Encycl.,   [and  KURTZ,  Sacrificial  Worship  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, transl.  by  Martin,  Edinb.,  1863). — On  the  history,  value 
and  rules  of  typology,  the  important  article,  Vorbild,  by  THO- 
LUCK,  in  HERZOG,  with  the  literature  there  cited  [also  FAIR- 
BAIRN,  The  Typology  of  Scripture  viewed  in  Connection  with  the 
entire  Scheme  of  the  Divine  Dispensations,  2nd  ed.     Phil.,  1854. 
2  vols.  in  one].  —  On  the  Mosaic  Legislation,  the  well  known 
works  of  MICHAELIS  ["  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  Moses," 
transl.  by  A.  Smith,  Lond.,  1844.     4  vols],  SAALSCHUTZ,  and 
others ;  also  PICCARDT,  de  legislat.   Mos.   in  dole  morali,   Traj., 
1839,   DEGrROOT,  "Education  of  Mankind" — On  the  germs  of 
subsequent    development    concealed    in   Mosaism,    THOLUCK? 
"  The   Old  Testament  in  the  New   Testament,"  in  the  appendix 
to  his  "•  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,"  UMBREIT, 
"  The  Gospel  in  the   Old  Testament"  in  the  Stud.  u.  Krit ,  1849. 
Comp.  G.  K.  MEYER,  "  The  promises  to  the  Patriarchs"  Kordhl- 
1859. 


Prophetism.  25 

Questions  for  consideration. — Difference  and  agreement  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments. — Survey  and  criticism  of  the  different 
views  of  Mosaism. — Is  it  possible  to  explain  the  origin  of  Mo- 
saism  in  Israel  on  merely  natural  grounds  ? — The  hypothesis  of 
stone- worship.-  -Agreement  and  difference  between  the  Theoc- 
racy and  the  later  hierarchy. — To  what  extent  is  Mosaism  en- 
tirely original?— (SPENCER  and  WITSIUS).— The  different  forms 
of  special  revelation.  —  The  symbolical  character  of  other  an- 
cient religions  also. — How  is  the  former  over-estimation,  and 
the  subsequent  repudiation  of  Typology  to  be  explained — 
More  particular  exhibition  of  the  symbolico -typical  element 
in  the  different  kinds  of  sacrifices.  —  How  far  may  the  Mosaic 
legislation,  compared  with  others,  serve  as  evidence  of  the 
-divine  origin  of  Mosaism  ? — Mosaism  and  the  Messianic  expect- 
ations. 

§6- 

Prophetism. 

Prophetism,  in  its  character  not  less  unique  than  the  original 
Mosaism,  and  to  be  explained  neither  in  a  rationalistic  way, 
nor  as  a  sort  of  divination,  was  at  once  the  support  and  the 

fulfillment  of  previous  revelation,  and  as  such,  an  unspeakable 
boon,  not  only  to  Israel,  but  also  to  the  heathen  world.  It 
paved  the  way  for  the  Gospel  in  the  New  Testament,  exerted 
an  important  influence  upon  the  contents  and  form  of  its 
preaching,  and  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  bore  witness  to  its 
exalted  excellence. 

1.  As  Moses  stood,  as  a  prophet,  far  above  his  contemporaries 
(Num.  12,  6-8),  so,  after  him,  arose,  from  time  to  time,  ex- 
traordinary men  of  God.  Even  in  the  period  of  the  Judges 
individual  prophets  appeared  (Judges  4,  4.  6,  8),  but  it  was 
properly  not  till  the  time  of  Samuel  that  the  prophetic  age 
began.  He  appears  to  have  been  the  founder  of  the  so-called 
schools  of  the  prophets,  which  were  subsequently  more  fully 
developed  under  Elijah  and  Elisha.  His  own  relation  to  Saul 


26  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

and  David  represents  that  of  his  successors  towards  later 
kings.  As  defenders  of  the  Theocracy,  called  by  Jehovah 
himself,  they  come  forth  from  different  stations  and  circles. 
They  stand  in  no  respect  above  the  law,  but  maintain  its  au- 
thority, emphasize  its  spiritual  interpretation,  and  interpret  the 
deeds  and  counsels  of  God,  into  which  they  penetrated  more 
deeply  than  others.  Hence  they  bear  the  name  of  "  Messengers 
of  Jehovah,"  "Speakers,"  "Seers,"  etc.,  and  are  in  more  re- 
spects than  one  distinguished  from  the  priests.  They  teach  the 
people  to  understand  the  signs  of  the  times,  and  not  unfrequently 
utter  predictions,  properly  so  called,  that  is,  distinct  announce- 
ments of  future  events,  which  could  not  possibly  be  discovered 
in  any  natural  way.  If  there  is  little  reason  for  regarding  the 
foretelling  of  future  events  as  the  chief  calling  of  the  prophets, 
impartial  criticism  finds  quite  as  little  ground  for  excluding 
a  priori  from  their  vocation  the  prediction  of  hidden  things 
which  stood  in  organic  connection  with  the  development  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  The  principle  that  the  knowledge  of  the 
prophets  in  no  case  transcended  the  natural  bounds  of  human 
information  is  in  irreconcilable  conflict  both  with  the  utterances 
of  their  own  consciousness  and  with  facts. 

2.  That  the  Israelitish  prophetism  may  be  styled  an  entirely 
unique  phenomenon  is  evident,  partly  when  we  consider  it  in 
itself  and  partly  when  we  compare  it  with  the  heathen  divina- 
tion. A  plant  like  this  could  blossom  only  on  a  theistic  soil ; 
prophetism  can  be  explained  only  as  a  link  in  a  chain  of  spe- 
cial provisions  of  salvation.  We  have  no  choice  except  be- 
tween the  view  of  it  as  supernatural  or  unnatural.  To  explain 
prophetism  on  rationalistic  grounds  is  to  forget  that  the  utter- 
ance of  human  feeling  and  the  prophetic  consciousness  of  the 
Seer  were  often  directly  opposed  to  each  other  (1  Sam.  15,  11. 
16,  6.  7 ;  2  Sam.  7,  3-7),  and  is  finally  to  make  the  theocracy 
merely  a  device  and  calculation  favored  by  the  current  of 
events.  The  Israelitish  prophet  saw  more  than  others,  because 
God  communicated  more  to  him.  Undoubtedly  the  capacity 
for  receiving  such  a  communication  existed  in  the  prophets  in 
no  common  degree,  but  the  source  of  their  personal  certainty 
respecting  the  present  and  the  future  lay  in  special  revelations, 
given  to  them  in  different  forms,  as  they  were  not  to  other  men. 


Prophetism.  27 

However  untenable  may  be  the  theory  of  a  mere  magical  and 
mechanical  inspiration,  the  fact  itself  of  inspiration  is  not  over- 
thrown. Prophecy  was  the  ripe  fruit  not  only  of  a  divine  influ- 
ence, but  of  revelation,  adapted,  in  respect  to  contents  and  form, 
to  the  individuality  of  the  prophets  and  to  existing  circum- 
stances, though  without  being  susceptible  of  being  explained 
only  from  these.  "History  is  the  introduction  to  prophecy, 
but  not  its  measure  "  (DELITZSCH).  Genuine  prophecy  is  the 
product  of  the  combined  activity  of  the  Divine  and  the  human 
factor ;  upon  the  foundation  of  what  is  given  in  the  past 
and  the  present,  it  directs  its  look  to  the  mysteries  of  the 
future. 

3.  Prophetism  stands  in  very  close  connection  with  Mosaism. 
It  supports  the  prescriptions  of  the  latter,  which  otherwise 
would  have  been  constantly  forgotten  (Mai.  4,  4.  5),  and  at 
the  same  time  developes  its  doctrinal  import  and  adds  essen- 
tially new  elements.  If  Mosaism  declared  the  unity  of  God, 
the  prophets  of  Israel  extol  his  majesty  in  language  of  in- 
imitable sublimity,  and  lash  with  satire  the  folly  of  idolatry 
(Is.  40  and  44).  The  idea  of  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant  and 
of  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  much  more  prominent  in  the  pro- 
phetic word  than  in  the  books  of  Moses  (Is.  63,  9.  10).  The 
doctrine  of  angels,  like  that  of  demons,  of  which  there  are 
only  slight  traces  in  Mosaism,  is  strongly  and  in  many  forms 
brought  out,  especially  by  the  later  prophets.  The  expectation 
also  of  the  resurrection  and  the  judgment  after  death,  on  which 
Moses  was  silent,  is  expressly  mentioned  by  some  of  them  (Is. 
25,  6-9;  26,  19  ;  Ezek.  37,  1-14;  Dan.  12,  2.  3).— Since  Mosa- 
ism was  in  principle  purely  ethical,  the  propheti  j  word  predom- 
inantly directs  attention  to  the  spiritual  nature  of  God's  com- 
mandments, and,  in  opposition  to  a  mechanical  formalism  and 
ritualism,  insists  upon  internal  consecration  to  God  as  the  es- 
sential part  of  the  sacrificial  worship  (1  Sam.  15,  22 ;  Is.  1,  11- 
18 ;  Micah  6,  6-8). — If,  finally,  Mosaism  was  limited  and  na- 
tional, the  prophets  took  their  stand  on  the  wall  of  separation 
which  yet  they  could  not  remove,  and  proclaimed  a  kingdom 
of  God,  which,  going  forth  from  Jerusalem,  embraces  all  nations 
(Is.  2,  4) ;  a  golden  age  in  the  future,  brighter  than  the  heathen 
had  ever  dreamed  of  (Is.  11,  6-9). 


28  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

4.  Messianic  prophecy  also,  both  in  the  more  limited  and  in 
the  broader  sense,  (that  relating  to  the  person  and  kingdom  of 
the  Messiah)  may,  in  a  certain  sense,  be  regarded  as  a  develop- 
ment of  Mosaism.     It  was  a  continuation  of  a  golden  chain  of 
prophecies  with  which  the  Pentateuch  had  already  made  the 
prophets  and  their  contemporaries  familiar  (see  §  4,  10).     The 
house  of  David,  who,  himself  a  prophet,  was  gladdened  with  the 
sublimest  prospect  (2  Sam.  23,  1-7 ;  Matt.  22,  43 ;  Acts  2,  30), 
was  the  point  from  which  the  highest  expectations,  which  were 
delineated  in  ever  clearer  lines,  were  made  to  proceed.    In  the 
earliest  prophets,  Joel  (2,  28-32),  Amos  (9,  11.  12),  and  Hosea 
(3  ;  5),  they  are  expressed  in  more  general  forms,  but  in  Micah 
(4;  5),    and   especially  in   Isaiah,    the  image  of  the   eagerly 
looked  for  Branch  of  David  is  depicted  in  stronger  and  stronger 
colors  (Is.  7,  14 ;  9,  1-6 ;  11,  1-10).     To  the  description  of  his 
kingly  glory  is  joined  that  of  his  prophetic  and  priestly  offices, 
especially  in  the  last  chapters  of  Isaiah  (42  ;  49  ;  50,  4-11 ;  52, 
13 — 53,  12).     Although  the  Branch  of  David  is  not  forgotten 
(53,  3),  it  is  more  especially  the  "  Servant  of  the  Lord  "  who  pro- 
claims his  salvation,  not  only  to  Israel  but  to  the  Gentiles,  suf- 
fers the  innocent  for  the  guilty,  and  as  the  true,  spiritual  Israel 
becomes  the  source  of  both  temporal  and  spiritual  blessings  to 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth.* — What  was  thus  announced  be- 
fore the  captivity,  was  during  it  guarded,  repeated,  and  enriched 
with  new  features.      Upon  the  ruins  of  Jerusalem  Jeremiah 
beholds  the  throne  of  David  rising  in  brighter  splendor  (23,  5. 
6),  and  then  presently  exhibits  the  spiritual  glory  of  the  new 
dispensation  as  compared  with  the  old  (31,  31-34).     Ezekiel 
describes  the  Son  of  David  under  the  winning  image  of  a  cedar 
(17,  22-24),  and  shepherd  (34,  23),  and  beholds  a  stream  of 
living  water  issuing   forth   from   the  new  temple  (47,  1-12). 
The  world-prophet  Daniel  stands  upon  an  eminence,  whence  in 
the  silence  of  night  he  sees  the  image  of  earthly  monarchs 
broken  in  pieces  at  his  feet,  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  sym- 
bolized in  the  form  of  a  Son  of  Man,  coming  with  the  clouds 
of  heaven  (Ch.  2  and  7). — After  the  captivity,  also,  the  same 
expectation  of  salvation  manifests  itself  in  a  great  variety  of 
forms,  but  with  an  essentially  similar  import.     Haggai  (2,  7-9) 

*  Comp.  OEHLER,  der  Knecht  Jehovah's  in  Deutero  (?)  Jesaidh.    Stuttg.,  1865. 


Prophetism.  29 

anticipates  a  revelation  of  God's  kingdom  even  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, which  shall  raise  the  glory  of  the  second  temple  far  above 
that  of  the  first.  Zechariah  sees  the  priestly  and  kingly  dig- 
nity united  in  the  Branch  of  David,  who  comes  in  gentleness 
to  the  miserable  (6,  12.  13 ;  9,  9).  Malachi,  who  sees  in  Him 
the  messenger  of  the  covenant,  announces  also  the  second  Elias 
as  his  forerunner  (3,  1 ;  4,  5).  Each  prophet  stands  upon  the 
shoulders  of  his  predecessor ;  but  they  all  alike  point  to  one, 
who  is  the  end  of  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

5.  No  wonder  that  such  a  prophetism  may  be  styled  an  un- 
speakable benefit  to  the  people  of  Israel     It  was  the  steadfast 
supporter  of  revelation,  the  bulwark  of  religion,  and,  so  to 
speak,   the  incorruptible  conscience   of  the  theocratic   state. 
Through  prophetism  Israel  saw  at  once  its  past  history  justified, 
its  present  explained,  and  its  future  made  sure.     Hence  it  was 
that  the  possession  of  prophets  was  regarded  as  a  distinguished 
privilege  (Neh.  9,  30 ;  Amos  2,  11),  while  the  absence  of  them 
was  regarded  as  a  national  calamity  (Ps.  74,  9). — Even  on  the 
Gentile  world  a  marked  influence  was  exerted  by  prophetism. 
For,  the  life  and  labors  of  some  of  the  prophets  outside  of  the 
land  of  promise  (Elisha,  Jonah,  Daniel)  had  a  direct  tendency 
to  pave  the  way  for  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
in  a  broader  circle.     To  this  the  Greek  translation  of  the  pro- 
phetic word  especially  contributed. 

6.  Thus  prophetism,  both  in  Israel  and  in  the  Gentile  world, 
was  a  preparation  for  the  gospel  of  the  New  Testament     It 
steadily  supported  Monotheism,  without  which  a  more  particu- 
lar revelation  of  salvation  was  not  conceivable.     It  aroused  and 
sharpened  the  sense  of  sin,  that  man  might  long  more  earnestly 
for  redemption.     It  kept  hope  alive,  when  hope  seemed  to  be  in 
vain,  and  preached  the  comfort  of  promise  instead  of  the  terror 
of  the  law.     The  entire  personality,  even,  the  work  and  the 
fate  of  the  most  eminent  prophets,  were  to  serve  as  typical  of 
Him,  who  was  to  be  the  crown  and  centre  of  all  the  revelations 
of  God  (Is.  61,  1 ;  comp.  Luke  4,  18.  19 ;  Matt.  12,  40 ;  23,  37). 

7.  To  the  student  of  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, the  study  of  the  prophetic  word  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  of  undeniable  importance.     On  the  contents  and  form  of  the 
primitive  preaching  of  the  Gospel  it  exerted  a  manifest  influence. 


30  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  G-ospel  came  forth  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophetic  expec- 
tations, and  appealed,  in  proof  of  its  divinity,  to  prophetic  dec- 
larations (Luke  24,  27;  Acts  17,  3  and  many  other  passages). 
In  the  mirror  of  these  Scriptures  our  Lord  beheld  his  own 
image,  and  thousands  have  recognized  him  as  the  Christ.  The 
description,  both  of  his  person  and  work,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment finds  its  key  in  the  language  and  the  ceremonial  worship 
of  the  Old.  Nay,  with  all  the  difference  in  form  between  the 
prophetic  and  the  Apostolic  utterances,  the  influence  of  the 
former  upon  the  latter  is  incontestable.  The  Eschatology  of 
the  New  Testament,  for  example,  is  clothed  to  a  great  extent 
in  the  garb  of  symbols  taken  from  the  prophetic  writings,  and 
reechoes  in  louder  tones  Old  Testament  utterances.  Neglect 
the  prophetic  writings,  and  those  of  the  Apostles  will  seem 
partly  unintelligible  and  partly  incredible.  Study  the  latter 
in  the  light  of  the  former  and  their  truth  and  divinity  will  appear 
more  and  more  evident.  That  it  is  necessary,  however,  in  the 
explanation  of  prophecy  to  distinguish  between  its  contents 
and  form,  and  to  guard  on  the  one  hand  against  a  realistic 
abuse  of  oriental  imagery  and  on  the  other  against  spiritualizing 
into  thin  air  the  realities  announced,  scarcely  needs  to  be  said. 
Particular  rules  for  the  interpretation  of  the  prophetic  word  are 
given  in  the  Hermeneutics  of  the  Old  Testament. 

On  prophetism  in  general  compare,  in  addition  to  the  mono- 
graphs of  KNOBEL  (1838),  KOSTEK  (1838),  and  EWALD  (1840), 
especially  DELITZSCH  " BiUico-prophetical  Theology"  etc.,  1845; 
best  of  all,  the  important  articles  of  OEHLER,  Prophetenthum 
and  Weissagung  des  A.  B.  in  HERZOG'S  Real-Encycl.  XII  and 
XVII,  THOLUCK,  "  The  Prophets  and  their  Prophecy"  1860.  [Also 
FAIRBAIRN,  "Prophecy,  its  Nature,  Functions,  etc.,"  1856]. — On 
the  Messianic  prophecies  especially,  the  article,  Messias,  by 
THOLUCK,  in HERZOG,  HOFFMANN,  "  Prophecy  and  Fulfillment" 
Nordl.,  1841,  HENGSTENBERG-,  "  Christology  of  the  Old  Testament," 
[transl.  1854-1859.  4  vols].  VAN  OOSTERZEE,"  Christology," 
L  bl.  39-74,  II.  bl.  543-554.  [J.  PYE  SMITH,  Scripture  Testi- 
mony to  the  Messiah,"  5th  ed.,  2  vols.  1859.]  Comp.  also  Dus- 
TERDIECK,  de  rei  propheticce,  in  V.  T.  quam  universes  tarn  Messi- 
ance  naturd  ethicd.  Gott.,  1852. 


Judaism.  31 

Questions  for  consideration. — How  is  the  gift  of  prophecy  de- 
scribed by  the  prophets  themselves  ? — Have  we  good  grounds 
for  trusting  this  expression  of  their  consciousness?  —  History 
and  criteria  of  pseudo-prophetism. — The  schools  of  the  prophets. 
— The  relation  of  the  prophetic  office  to  that  of  the  priests  and 
kings.  —  Organic  connection  and  development  of  Messianic 
prophecy. — Keason  and  meaning  of  the  disappearance  of  the 
prophetic  gift  in  Israel. — Peculiarity  of  the  prophets  of  the  Old 
in  distinction  from  those  of  the  New  Testament. 


Judaism. 

The  original  Hebraism,  which  was  taught  in  its  purity  by 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  on  passing  into  the  later  Judaism, 
received  in  no  sense  its  normal  development,  but  sank  rather 
into  a  state  of  degeneracy  and  decay.  Such  is  the  view  given 
to  us  by  a  survey  of  the  religious  condition,  ideas  and  needs  of 
the  contemporaries  of  our  Lord.  With  these  we  must  be 
acquainted  in  order  to  understand  and  properly  appreciate  the 
import  and  form  of  the  declarations  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles. 

1.  Although  the  words  of  our  Lord  and  the  Apostles  cer- 
tainly come  into  close  connection  with  those  of  Moses  and  the 
prophets,  it  is  manifest,  nevertheless,  that  this  connection  takes 
place  with  a  distinct  reference  to  given  conditions  and  particu- 
lar necessities.     Without  remembering  this,  the  doctrine  of  the 
New  Testament  would  be  unintelligible ;  hence  the  knowledge 
of  Judaism,  not  less  than  Hebraism,  is  not  only  desirable,  but 
necessary. 

2.  By  Judaism  is  meant  the  particular  moral  and  religious 
state  of  the  Israelites  (then  styled  Jews)  after  the  Babylonian 
captivity,  and  whatever  was  necessarily  connected  with  it.     It 
has  not  incorrectly  been  described  as  "  the  perverted  restora- 
tion of  Hebraism,  and  the  mingling  of  its  positive  constituent 
parts  with  foreign  mythological  and  metaphysical  doctrines,  in 
which  a  speculative  understanding  without  living  enthusiasm  is 


32  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

dominant ;  a  chaos,  which  awaits  a  new  creation  " 
It  is  known,  partly  from  Biblical  sources  (the  latest  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament,  the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  several  Epistles  of  the 
New  Testament,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  from  the  Septua- 
gint) ;  partly  from  other  writings  (the  Apocrypha  and  Pseud- 
epigraphical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  oldest  Targums, 
the  Talmud,  the  Jewish  parts  of  the  Sibylline  books,  the  writ- 
ings of  Flavius  Josephus,  Philo,  etc.). 

3.  The  moral  and  religious  condition  of  the  Jews  after  the 
Babylonian  Captivity  exhibited  in  more  than  one  respect  a  rel- 
atively favorable  character.    Idolatry  had  ceased,  the  temple  was 
rebuilt,  a  number  of  synagogues  and  houses  of  prayer  had 
been  erected  (Acts  15,  21),  and  the  knowledge  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  read  there  in  regular  order,  was  widely  diffused. 
United  in  a  single  volume,  and  extensively  circulated  through 
the  Alexandrian  translation,  the  Old  Testament  was  sharply 
distinguished  [in  the  Hebrew   Canon]    from   the  Apocryphal 
literature,  which  arose  at  this  period,  and  was  carefully  ex- 
plained and  defended  by  those  who  were  devoted  to  Eabbinic 
learning.     The  separating  wall  between  Israel  and  the  Gentile 
world  was  visibly  lowered,  and  a  considerable  number  of  pros- 
elytes, both  of  the  gate  and  of  righteousness,  attached  them- 
selves to  the  hitherto  despised  Jews.     Forms  were  in  many  re- 
spects excellent,  and  the  heroic  Maccabean  age  showed  that  the 
old  spirit  had  not  wholly  disappeared.     And  finally,  the  ex- 
pectation of  a  Messiah  was  now  much  better  known,  more 
widely  diffused,  and  more  highly  prized  than  ever  before. 

4.  But  notwithstanding  all  this,  the  period  in  question  ex- 
hibits strong  traces  of  senility.    The  religious  life,  in  attributing 
holiness  to  knowledge  on  the  one  hand  and  to  works  on  the 
other,  became  cramped  and  stunted,  and  exhibited  a  character 
rather  intellective  and  anxious,  than  pious  and  joyous ;  trivial 
exactness  took  the  place  of  the  earlier  zeal.     False  prophets,  it  is 
true,  did  not  arise  in  this  period,  but  the  voice  of  the  true 
prophets  was  no  longer  heard.     The  past  was  appealed  to,  but 
without  elevating  the  present  to  the  earlier  eminence.     Beside 
the  law,  tradition  came  into  vogue  (Matt.  15,  1-14) ;  along  with 
the  Mosaic  ideas,  the  influence  of  Alexandrian,  Persian,  and 
other  religious  conceptions  began  to  be  visible,  and  while 


Judaism.  33 

knowledge  puffed  up,  love  was  forgotten.  Opinions  were  di- 
vided between  the  schools  of  HILLEL  and  SHAMMAI,  and  the 
sects  which  arose  at  this  period  contributed  to  the  degeneracy 
of  Judaism. 

5.  The  Pharisees,  who  represented  the  conservative  principle, 
arose  as  a  sect  about  three  centuries  before  Christ  They  ex- 
erted a  great  influence  among  the  people,  especially  among  the 
women  (Mark  12,  40),  and  most  of  the  scribes  were  in  their 
ranks.  With  all  their  divisions  among  themselves,  they  re- 
garded themselves  as  ONE,  separated  (pharasli),  not  merely  as 
Israelites  from  the  Gentiles,  but  also  as  pious  persons  from  the 
sinners  among  their  own  countrymen.  Their  theology  was  a 
complicated  system  of  Pneumatology,  Christology  and  Escha- 
tology;  their  ethical  views  were  characterized  by  formalism, 
rigorism  and  casuistry ;  their  practice  by  zelotism  (Matt  23,  15) 
in  the  practice  of  religion  and  by  revolutionary  tendencies  in 
civil  life,  which  made  them  dreaded  opposers  of  the  Roman 
power. — The  Sadducees,  who,  in  distinction  from  the  Pharisees, 
professed  to  be  righteous  (tsadhaq) — unless  their  name  be  de- 
rived from  a  certain  Zadok — stood  in  somewhat  the  same  rela- 
tion to  them  as  the  Epicureans  did  to  the  Stoics.  Less  nume- 
rous, but  of  a  higher  class  than  their  opponents,  and  not  unfre- 
quently  agreeing  with  the  court  party  (Mark  3,  6),  they  held,  in 
relation  to  the  state,  very  conservative,  in  relation  to  religion, 
extremely  liberal,  principles. 

Absolutely  denying  any  divine  pre-ordination,  they  made  the 
doctrine  of  moral  freedom  so  prominent,  and  threw  that  of 
future  retribution  so  entirely  into  the  shade,  that  their  whole 
view  of  life  must  have  been  diametrically  opposed  to  that  of  the 
Pharisees.  The  charge,  however,  of  gross  immorality,  is  no 
better  supported  than  that  of  their  rejecting  the  whole  of  the 
Old  Testament  except  the  Law.  It  cannot  be  questioned,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  they  denied  the  existence  of  angels,  and 
their  constant  hostility  to  the  Gospel  of  the  "Resurrection  (Acts 
4,  2 ;  23,  8,)  is  quite  in  character. — The  Essenes,  our  knowledge 
of  whom  is  derived,  not  from  the  New  Testament,  but  from  the 
work  of  Philo,  "  quod  omnis  probus  liber"  and  Josephus  (comp. 
also  Pliny,  H.  N.  V.  17),  and  who  must  not  be  confounded  with 
the  Therapeutae,  may  be  regarded  as  representatives  of  the  prac- 
3 


34  Biblical  Tlieology  of  the  New  Testament. 

tico-ascetic  principle.  They  were,  so  to  speak,  the  anchorites 
of  Israel,  and  were  distinguished  by  their  contempt  of  earthly 
treasures,  refusal  to  take  an  oath,  high  regard  for  celibacy,  dis- 
approval of  animal  sacrifices,  and  holding  all  their  property  in 
common.  The  difference  between  them  and  John  the  Baptist, 
and  especially  our  Lord,  is  so  great  as  to  render  the  conjecture 
of  an  original  affinity  of  the  Gospel  of  the  kingdom  with 
Essenism  entirely  untenable. 

Amid  the  mutual  strifes  of  these  sects,  we  find  the  people 
treated  with  contempt  and  ever  growing  worse,  (Matt.  9,  36 ; 
comp.  John  7,  49).  The  religious  class  among  the  people  con- 
sisted largely  of  the  poor  (mwxol,  Heb.  ebhyonim)  in  respect  both 
to  earthly  treasure  and  to  much  that  was  regarded  as  wisdom 
and  piety  (Matt.  5,  3  ;  11,  25).  To  these  plain  and  simple  peo- 
ple belonged  not  only  the  kindred  of  our  Lord,  but  also  the 
larger  part  of  his  friends  and  followers,  and  even  among  the 
despised  Samaritans  there  were  not  wanting  those  of  a  similar 
character  (John  4,  39-42).  The  enmity  between  the  latter  people 
and  the  Jews  could  only  result  in  increased  moral  degeneracy. 

7.  The  religious  ideas  of  the  Jews,  developed  amid  such  rela- 
tions,  exhibited  a  peculiar  combination   of  light  and   shade. 
Monotheism,  with  many,  had  practically  a  character  rather  deis- 
tic  than  theistic ;  religion  was  not  so  much  the  common  worship 
of  God,  as  a  slavish  service.     On  some  points  their  doctrinal 
views  were  undoubtedly  affected  by  foreign  ideas.     The  doc- 
trine of  angels  was  more  fully  developed,  (see  e.  g.  the  LXX  on 
Deut.  33,  2  ;  comp.  Acts  7,  53  ;  Gal.  3,  19 ;  Heb.  2,  2),  and  also 
that  of  evil  spirits,  in  connection  with  which  exorcism  became 
prominent  (Matt.  12,  27).     Eschatology,  also,  was  more  fully 
brought  out,  especially  through  Pharisaism,  although  in  essen- 
tials it  adhered  to  individual  prophetic  declarations  (Dan.  12, 
1-3).     In  respect,  finally,  to  ethics,  the  great  principles  of  Mo- 
saism  were  illustrated,  and  applied  to  particular  cases,  but  were 
frequently  weakened,  if  not  rather  contradicted  (Matt.  23,  16- 
22),  by  a  great  number  of  prescriptions  and  prohibitions.     Thus 
the  Jewish  religion  degenerated  in  proportion  as  its  doctrinal 
and  ethical  teachings  were  extended. 

8.  We  must  speak  more  particularly  of  the  Messianic  expecta- 
tion during  this  period.     The  doubt  whether  such  an  expecta- 


Judaism.  35 

tion  existed  (B.  BAUER)  must  be  reckoned  among  the  curiosities 
of  theological  literature.  Easy,  however,  as  it  is  to  prove  its 
existence,  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  define  its  precise  nature. 
Josephus  was  familiar  with  it,  but  for  obvious  reasons,  is  silent. 
Philo  has  only  a  single  reference  to  it,  (de  proem,  p.  924,  de  exe- 
crat.  c.  9),  and  even  the  Old  Testament  Apocryphal  books  con- 
tain only  a  few  occasional  hints  (see  e.  g.  1  Mace.  2,  57 ;  4,  46 ; 
14,  41).  More  may  be  gathered  from  the  so-called  book  of 
Enoch,  written  probably  about  a  century  before  Christ,  while  the 
fourth  book  of  Ezra,  although  of  later  origin,  is  an  important 
source  of  information.  Above  all,  we  must  consult  what  is 
found  in  the  New  Testament  respecting  this  idea. 

From  a  comparison  of  various  passages,  it  appears  that  the 
Messianic  expectation,  although  universally  current,  was  by  no 
means  uniform  in  import  or  value,  and  no  where  existed  in  a 
fully  developed  form.  The  entire  history  of  the  world  was  di- 
vided into  two  periods,  the  pre-Messianic  and  the  Messianic  (the 
ai&v  ofaog  and  6  ^Uwv,  Heb.  olam  hazzeh  and  olam  habbd).  The 
former  was  the  time  of  strife  and  misery,  the  latter  of  peace  and 
blessedness,  to  spring  from  the  advent  of  the  Messiah.  The  pas- 
sage from  the  one  to  the  other  of  these  periods,  is  described  as 

the  last  days,  (f(r}f<xrai  fa^cti,,  vdTeQOi  xaiQol,  $(T%<XTT]  &qa,  x.  T.  A.).     With 

this  coincides  the  beginning  of  the  days  of  the  Messiah,  the  man- 
ifestation of  whom  will  be  announced  by  sensible  tokens.  These 
will  consist  in  days  of  great  distress  (&&>£?),  in  the  appearance 
of  a  special  star  (Matt.  2,  2),  the  coming  of  Elias  or  one  of 
the  other  prophets  as  the  forerunner  of  the  Lord  (Mark  9,  12  ; 
John  1,  21),  and  especially  of  a  mysterious  evil  being  (the  Anti- 
Christ,  Armillus),  while  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom  will 
be  preceded  by  a  struggle  with  hostile  secular  powers,  (Gog  and 
Magog).  After  all  this,  the  Messiah  will  come,  or  rather  he 
will  appear,  no  one  will  know  whence. 

So,  at  least,  thought  a  portion  of  the  people  (John  7,  27), 
while  the  Scribes  expected  that  he  would  come  from  Bethle- 
hem (Matt  2,  4-6).  He  was  to  be  a  man  among  and  from 
men  (see  JUSTIN  M.  Dial  c.  Tryph.  c.  49),  directly  springing  from 
the  family  of  David,  and  anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  It 
cannot  be  shown  that  the  popular  belief  expected  a  miraculous 


36  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

conception  of  the  Messiah  from  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  that  it  attri- 
buted to  him  a  superhuman  nature  and  dignity.  There  was 
scarcely  place,  also,  for  the  idea  of  a  suffering  and  dying  Mes- 
siah ;  on  the  contrary,  they  expected  that  the  Christ  would  re- 
main forever  (John  12,  34),  and  would  establish  his  kingdom 
in  Israel  (Acts  1,  6).  On  the  question,  whether  the  ten  tribes 
would  share  in  this  salvation  along  with  Judah  and  Benjamin, 
opinions  were  divided.  In  any  event,  however,  it  was  hoped 
that  the  Messiah  would  settle  all  disputed  questions  (John  4, 
25),  reveal  hidden  things  (John  16,  30),  and  especially  perform 
a  number  of  astonishing  miracles  (Matt.  11,  2-6 ;  John  7,  31), 
and  that,  in  consequence  of  all  this,  a  deliverance,  by  some  re- 
garded as  external,  by  others  as  spiritual,  would  come  (Luke  1, 
74.  75).  At  his  advent  he  was  to  raise  the  dead,  and  first  of  all 
the  Israelites,  triumph  over  the  enmity  of  hell  and  the  heathen, 
and  prepare  for  the  world  a  salvation,  in  which  the  non-Israeli- 
tish  nations  were  also  to  share.  The  center  of  this  work  was  to 
be  Jerusalem  ;  the  purified  earth,  its  theater ;  and  the  restoration 

of  all  things,  its  crown  (nal^evsaLvi,  &7TOXaT&(TT(tat,s  n&vtwv). 

9.  The  nation  in  which  we  find  these  ideas,  stood  in  need  of 
higher  light  and  life,  although  the  need  was  not  generally  recog- 
nized. Still  less  was  it  satisfactorily  met.  The  desire  for  exter- 
nal deliverance  was  far  greater  than  for  spiritual  healing.  Still, 
the  latter  was  not  wholly  wanting  (Luke  2,  38),  and  might,  at 
any  event,  be  aroused.  The  forerunner  must,  consequently, 
precede  the  Lord. 

Comp.  on  the  history  and  sources  of  Judaism  in  general,  DE 
WETTE,  "Biblical  Dogmatics"  §  76-82,  and  the  literature  there 
cited;  GFRORER,  "  The  Century  of  Redemption"  1838;  LUT- 
TERBECK,  S.  99.  DE  PRESSENSE,  History  of  the  Three  first 
centuries,  etc. — On  the  different  sects  at  this  period,  TRIG- 
LAND,  Syntagma  trium  scriptt.  de  tribus  Jud.  sectis.  1703 ;  VAN 
KoETSVELD,  "  The  Pharisees,  Sadducees  and  Herodians,  s'Gra- 
venh,  1862,  and  especially  the  articles  in  HERZOG. — On  the  ex- 
pectation of  a  Messiah,  the  article  by  OEHLER,  in  HERZOG,  IX  ; 
DE  PRESSENSE,  Jesus  Christ,  his  times,  etc.  1844,  p.  81  sqq. ;  LAS- 
SEN,  '•''Judaism  in  Palestine  at  the  time  of  Christ"  Freib.  in  Br. 
1866,  S.  391ff.  Comp.  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  "  Christology  of  the  Old 
Testament,"  bl.  494  sqq.  and  oh  the  whole  of  the  period  of  "  the 


John  the  BaptisL  37 

fulness  of  time,"  his  "  Life  of  Jesus"  bl.  245,  and  the  literature 
there  given,  to  which  may  be  added  an  essay  by  KEITSMA, 
"  On  i/ie  religions  thinking  in  general  at  the  time  of  Jesus"  Waarh. 
in  L.,  1867. 

Questions  for  consideration.  Whence  chiefly  the  difference 
between  Judaism  and  Hebraism? — A  more  particular  criti- 
cism and  comparison  of  the  sources. — The  Jewish  Apocalyptic 
literature. — The  Alexandrian  philosophy  as  related  to  Judaism. 
— What  may  be  determined,  with  sufficient  certainty,  in  regard 
to  the  origin,  character  and  mutual  relation  of  the  different 
sects  ? — The  relation  between  Essenism  and  Pythagoreanism. — 
Origin  and  peculiarities  of  the  Samaritans,  and  their  expecta- 
tion of  a  Messiah. — Proselytism  and  the  Diaspora. — What, 
upon  the  whole,  are  the  bright  and  the  dark  sides  of  the  expecta- 
tion of  the  Messiah  at  this  period  ? — What  remnants  of  genu- 
ine Hebriasm  may  still  be  observed  in  Judaism  ? 


§7. 
John  the  Baptist. 

In  the  mission  and  labors  of  the  forerunner  of  our  Lord, 
Mosaism  approached  its  consummation,  Prophetism  reached  its 
culmination,  and  Judaism  received  a  wholesome  check. 

1.  The  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  can  neither 
dwell  upon  the  life  of  the  Baptist  nor  exhibit  the  nobleness  of 
his  character.     It  contents  itself,  in  general,  with  designating 
the  place  which  he  occupies,  as  an  indispensable  link  in  the 
chain  of  development  of  Christian  doctrine. 

2.  If  Moses  aimed  to  bring  men,  through  the  law,  to  the 
knowledge  of  sin,  and  then  to  awaken  a  desire  for  salvation, 
the  voice  of  the  second  Elias  was  raised  for  the  same  purpose. 
As  standing  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  earlier  messengers  of 
God  and  nearest  to  Jesus,  he  deserves  to  be  called  the  greatest  of 
the  prophets  (Luke  7,  29).     He  proclaimed  no  new  revelations, 
but  firmly  grasped  the  old,  and  brought  them  into  direct  con- 
nection with  a  person  already  existing  (Luke  16,    16).     His 


38  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

entire  appearing  and  labors  are  one  voice:  his  cry  is  the 
mighty  finale  of  the  prophetic  symphony.  But  just  for  this 
reason  it  became  to  Judaism  a  wholesome  check.  It  struck  a 
deadly  blow  at  all  self  righteousness  and  brought  the  nation  to  a 
sharp  but  beneficent  crisis. 

3.  The  significance  of  the  mission  of  John  lies  principally 
in  his  testimony  concerning  the  person  and  the  work  of  the  Mes- 
siah. In  examining  the  contents  of  this  testimony,  a  distinction 
must  be  made  between  the  period  before,  and  the  period  after, 
the  baptism  of  our  Lord.     The  most  unequivocal  and  decisive 
utterances  of  John  were  made  toward  the  end  of  his  course, 
(Acts  13,  25). 

It  is  quite  remarkable,  how  at  first  the  form  of  his  expecta- 
tion of  the  Messiah  was  affected  by  that  of  his  own  work, 
and  at  the  same  time  bore  a  strongly  marked  Old  Testament 
character.  Himself  baptizing,  he  announced  another,  who 
should  baptize  with  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit, — a  Messiah 
who  should  appear  not  merely  as  a  Saviour,  but  as  a  Judge 
in  Israel.  He  declared  the  insufficiency  of  mere  descent  from 
Abraham,  without,  however,  speaking  of  the  calling  of  the 
heathen.  After  this  general  announcement  of  the  Messiah, 
he  began,  after  the  baptism  of  our  Lord  in  the  Jordan,  to 
point  Him  out  as  the  promised  one.  His  heavenly  origin  (John 
1,  15)  and  His  atoning  work,  presented  in  the  most  universal 
form  (John  1,  29),  he  then  made  distinctly  prominent,  and  in 
his  final  testimony,  spoke  most  emphatically  of  the  incompre- 
hensible greatness  of  the  Christ  and  of  the  peculiar  relation  of 
hi^  forerunner  to  Him  (John  3,  27-36). 

4.  This  testimony  of  the  Baptist  is  important  on  account  of 
its  source.     It  was  the  fruit  of  careful  education,  close  study 
of  the  Scriptures,  special  divine  revelation,  and  the  sight  of 
Jesus,  in  person.     Its  value  becomes  more  marked  when  we 
observe  how  much  above  the  thoughts  and  wishes  of  his  con- 
temporaries  he   rises,  and  how   superior  to  all  is  the  place 
assigned  to  him  by  our  Lord  (Matt.  10,   7-15;  John  5,  35). 
Still,  in  comparison  with  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord  and   his 
Apostles,   the  testimony   of   John   the   Baptist  is  poor,    and 
goes,  in  no  essential  particular,  beyond  the  Old  Testament  point 
of  view. 


Result.  39 

Comp.  DE  Wus,  '''•John  the  Baptist,  in  his  life  and  doctrines" 
Schoonh,  1852  ;  the  works  on  the  gospel  history;  the  article  by 
GtlDEK  in  HERZOG,  and  the  literature  there  given. 

Questions  for  consideration.  The  time  of  the  appearing  of 
John  the  Baptist,  Luke  3,  12. — Substance  and  value  of  the 
testimony  of  Josephus  concerning  John. — Connection  of  the 
circumstances  of  the  life  of  the  Baptist  with  his  mission. — 
His  relation  to  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. — Difference  and 
agreement  of  the  gospel  narratives  concerning  his  Messianic 
testimony. — What  is  the  meaning  of  John  1,  15.  29? — of 
Matt.  11,  3  ? — The  disciples  of  John. — The  abiding  significance 
of  the  mission  of  John. 

§& 

Result 

Mosaism  and  Prophetism  contained  both  the  germ  and  the 
connecting  links  of  the  truth,  the  testimony  to  which,  as 
given  by  our  Lord  and  his  first  disciples,  is  recorded  in  the  Sa- 
cred Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament.  In  Judaism  we  find 
nothing  from  which  the  personal  character  of  our  Lord  and  the 
contents  of  his  gospel  can  be  explained  on  merely  natural 
grounds. 

"  The  radical  opposition,  existing  between  the  two  religious 
movements  is  clearly  seen  in  their  definitive  results.  The 
teachings  of  Christ  issued  in  the  Gospel ;  those  of  the  Kab- 
bins  in  the  Talmud.  On  the  one  side,  we  have  a  living  history 
thoroughly  penetrated  by  a  new  spirit,  without  fixed  formulas 
and  without  a  ritual ;  on  the  other  side,  a  body  of  entangling 
traditions,  directions  for  all  the  forms  of  piety  carried  into  the 
most  trivial  details." 

E.  DE  PRESSENSE. 


PART  II. 

THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 


§9. 
General  Survey. 

In  the  present  inquiry  respecting  the  teachings  of  Christ,  it 
is  proposed  to  present  the  substance  of  the  instruction  con- 
cerning God  and  divine  things  given  by  our  Lord  himself  dur- 
ing his  life  on  earth,  as  it  is  recorded  especially  in  the  four 
canonical  Gospels.  In  order  to  estimate  it  aright,  it  is  necessary- 
first  of  all,  to  state  clearly  the  special  character  of  this  instruc- 
.tion,  its  source,  its  form,  and  its  relation  both  to  the  teachings 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  to  those  of  the  Apostles  and  their 
associates. 

1.  Although  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  did  not  appear  on  earth 
simply,  or  even  chiefly,  to  make  known  to  men  a  new  doctrine, 
and  though  he  taught  no  doctrinal  system  as  such,  he  yet  came 
into  the  world,  as  he  expressly  declared,  to  bear  witness  to  the 
truth  (John  18,  37).     This  he  did  first,  by  His  personal  mani- 
festation (John  14,  6-9),  and  secondly,  by  His  word  and  the 
light  thereby  shed  upon  God  and  divine  things.     The  inquiry 
respecting  the  teachings  of  Christ  is  specially  concerned  with 
the  latter. 

2.  The  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament  treats  of 
the  doctrine,  or  rather  the  teachings  of  our  Lord  concerning 
God  and  divine  things,  to  the  exclusion  of  every  other  subject. 
It  presents  the  substance  and  connection  of  the  ideas,  whether 
implied  or  expressed  by  Him,  concerning  God  and  man  and 


Theology  of  Jesus  Christ.  41 

their  relations  to  each  other,  and  these  as  they  were  uttered  by 
Himself  during  His  life  on  earth.  Although  in  a  certain  sense 
the  word  of  the  Prophets  (1  Pet.  1,  11)  and  of  the  Apostles 
(Luke  10,  16)  may  be  regarded  as  His,  yet  for  the  present  we 
confine  ourselves  exclusively  to  what  He  himself  spoke. 

3.  Something,  also,  concerning  our  Lord's  instructions  can  be 
learned  outside  of  the  four  gospels.     Tradition  makes  us  ac- 
quainted with  a  few  unwritten  sayings,  so  called.     The  book  of 
Acts  and  the  Epistles  also  contain  single  contributions  (Acts 
20,  35 ;  1  John  1,  5  ;  4,  21).     The  four  Gospels,  however,  must 
ever  remain  the  principal  source ;  and  the  Biblical  Theology 
of  the  New  Testament  is  not  obliged  to  wait  for  the  last  word 
of  critical  inquiry  in  respect  to  their  authority,  in  order  to  at- 
tach the  highest  value  to  their  statements  respecting  the  in- 
structions of  our  Lord.     This  it  may  do  all  the  more  confident- 
ly, since  even  the  critics  who,  for  instance,  question  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  first  Gospel  in  its  present  form,  stop  to  note  the 
discourses  (logia)  of  our  Lord  preserved  therein  as  upon  the 
whole  a  true  expression  of  His  spirit.     The  fourth  Gospel, 
however,  in  the  present  state  of  critical  inquiry,  demands  a 
separate  examination  (comp.  §  3,  2). 

4.  In  order  to  obtain  the  right  point  of  view  it  is,  first  of  all, 
necessary  to  study  the  peculiar  character  of  our  Lord's  instruc- 
tions, as  given  in  all  the  Gospels.     As  the  whole  is  known  from 
its  parts,  so  in  turn  the  parts  receive  light  from  the  correctly 
apprehended  spirit  of  the  whole.     It  is  not  enough  to  say  that 
the  instructions  of  Jesus  exhibit  a  high  religious  character,  for 
this  they  have  in  common  with  many  other  religions,  and  the 
history,  even,  of  our  own  time  shows  what  wretched  trifling  is 
occasionally  used  with  the  word  "religious."    The  instructions 
of  our  Lord  are  distinguished  for  their  distinctly  soteriological 
character ;  in  other  words,  all  that  He  taught  concerning  God 
and  man,  sin  and  grace,  the  present  and  the  future  life,  and  es- 
pecially all  which  He  declared  concerning  Himself,  stands  in  a 
more  or  less  close  connection  with  the  redemption  which  He 
came  to  reveal  and  bestow.     It  is  not  so  much  religious  truth 
in  general,  as  specifically  saving  truth,  which  was  brought  to 
light  by  Him.     The  possibility  of  exhibiting  the  instructions 
of  our  Lord,  with  all  their  richness,  as  a  whole,  is  given  in  the 


42  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

fact,  that  from  first  to  last  they  are  in  respect  to  their  character, 
Gospel     Luke  4,  16-22  ;  comp.  John  6,  68. 

5.  In  inquiring  after  the  source  of  the  truths  taught  by  our 
Lord,  the  part  which  belongs  to  the  natural  world  and  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  must  not  be  overlooked. 
Still  less  must  His  maternal  training.  His  contact  in  various  ways 
with  the  spirit  of  His  age  and  its  most  prominent  representa- 
tives, and  the  painful  experiences  of  His  life  be  forgotten. 
More  than  all  else,  however,  the  personality  of  Jesus  was  the 
principal  source  of  his  instructions,  which,  for  this  reason,  in 
the  highest  sense  of  the  word  may  be  called  His,  and  which, 
from  first  to  last,  bear  the  stamp  of  the  most  marked  original- 
ity.    The  denial  of  this  by  our  Lord  in  John  7, 16  is  merely  in 
appearance.     He  constantly  declared  what  He  himself  had  seen 
with  the  Father  (John  12,  44-50),  and  proclaimed  the  truth  be- 
cause and  as  he  bore  it  in  himself.     His  knowledge  of  God  and 
man  was  not  discursive  but  intuitive ;  it  was  not  derived  from 
logical  propositions  or  the  observations  of  particulars,  but  from 
internal  intuition. 

6.  Not  only  the  contents,  but  also  the  form  of  his  instruc- 
tions was  determined  by  the  personality  of  our  Lord.     With- 
out scholastic  formalism  or  show  of  rabbinic  learning  (John  7, 
15),  he  discoursed,  as  the  occasion  presented  itself,  in  a  form 
entirely  popular  but  never  vulgar,  and  which  was  constantly  va- 
ried according  to  the  nature  of  the  subject,  the  aim  of  the 
speaker,  and  the  wants  of  the  hearers.     The  tone  of  lofty  au- 
thority with  which  he  spoke  distinguished  him,  not  only  from  the 
Scribes  of  his  day,  but  also  from  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament (Matt.  5-7),  and  his  winning  words  impressed  even  the 
minds  of  those  who  were  least  susceptible  (Luke  4,  22  ;  John 
7,  46).     Although  here  and  there  irony  is  not  wanting  (Mark 
7,  9 ;  Luke  11,  41),  the  ground- tone  is  love,  sadness,  and  holy 
earnestness,  and  never  does  the  discord  of  biting  sarcasm  ap- 
pear.    Both  the  parabolic  form  of  speech  in  the  three  first  Gos- 
pels, and  the  pregnant  and  paradoxical  form  which  often  ap- 
pears in  the  fourth,  increase  the  impressiveness  of  his  words. 
Never,  in  short,  has  a  more  perfect  harmony  of  subject  and 
form  been  seen  than  in  the  instructions  of  our  Lord.     The 
highest  truth  and  freedom  are  here  combined  with  the  highest 


Theology  of  Jesus  Christ.  43 

beauty — a  beauty,  however,  not  sensuous  in  its  character,  but 
moral  and  holy.  In  his  hands  the  materials  employed  are 
transmuted  into  gold. 

7.  With  all  this  originality  in  respect  to  form  and  matter, 
the  instructions  of  our  Lord  were  not  isolated,  but  stood  in 
very  distinct  relations  to  what  preceded  and  followed.  They 
constituted  the  golden  intermediate  link  in  a  connected  chain 
of  very  different  and  yet  never  conflicting  doctrines.  The 
words  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  were  apprehended,  presented, 
fulfilled,  and  completed  by  Jesus  in  such  a  way,  that  in  his  hands 
the  old  assumed  a  wholly  new  phase,  and  the  new  appeared  to 
be,  properly,  naught  else  than  the  ripe  fruit  of  the  old  Even 
when  he  does  not  directly  quote  the  prophetic  word,  it  is  the 
clear  mirror  in  which  he  beholds  himself  and  the  kingdom  of 
God.  The  Apocryphal  books  of  the  Old  Testament  he  never 
makes  use  of,  but  discriminatingly  directs  the  eyes  of  his  disci- 
ples to  the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the  Psalms  (Luke  24,  44 ; 
comp.  Matt.  23,  35).  According  both  to  the  synoptical  Gos- 
pels and  the  Gospel  of  John,  his  teaching  stood  in  close  con- 
nection with  that  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  the  preaching  of 
the  Apostles,  on  the  contrary,  his  words  were  the  brief,  clear 
and  powerful  text,  and  it  will  be  seen  further  on,  that  the  most 
essential  parts  of  their  various  doctrinal  teachings  have  their 
root  in  the  declarations  of  our  Lord  or  are  really  connected 
with  them.  His  instructions  are,  therefore,  the  light  which,  in 
various  shades,  is  reflected  in  theirs.  We  pass  now  to  survey 
the  splendor  of  this  light. 

Comp.  on  the  principal  points  referred  to  in  this  general  sur- 
vey, F.  A.  KRUMMACHER  "  on  the  Spirit  and  the  Form  of  the 
Gospel  History"  Leipz.  1805  (an  old  book,  but  still  useful),  WIT- 
KOP,  "Inquiry  how  far  the  personality  of  Jesus  was  the  source  of  ^ 
his  teachings"  Waarh.  in  Liefde,  1841;  REUSS,  S.  171;  SCHMID, 
S.  121  sqq. ;  BAUR.  S.  45-121 ;  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  Leven  van 
Jesus,  new  ed.  I.  bl.  435  sqq.  and  II.  bl.  343  sqq.  with  the  lit- 
erature there  referred  to ;  to  which  may  be  added  VAN  KOETS- 
VELD,  "  The  Parables  of  the  Saviour  "  (in  Dutch)  and  DELITZSCH, 
"  Jesus  and  Hillel"  The  glory  of  the  teachings  of  Jesus  is 
inimitably  set  forth  in  TEN  KATE'S  poem,  De  Schepping. 


44  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

Questions  for  Consideration:  What  theological  directions  in 
earlier  and  later  times  have  attached  a  too  exclusive  importance 
to  the  teachings  of  Jesus ;  which  have  too  much  ignored  their 
value? — Relation  in  this  respect  between  the  earlier  Rational- 
ism and  the  modern  Naturalism. — What  does,  and  what  does 
not  belong  to  the  circle  of  the  <Uij#e»«,  of  which  Jesus  testifies  ? 
— Different  value  of  the  dicta  aygacpa. — Why  does  the  preaching 
of  Jesus  bear  the  name  of  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  of  the 
kingdom  ? — What  is  there  properly  new  in  the  preaching  of 
Jesus  as  distinguished  from  that  of  earlier  men  of  God? — The 
typico-symbolical  character  of  the  first  discourse  of  Jesus  at 
Nazareth,  Luke  4,  16-22. — What  is  the  meaning  and  force  of 
John  7,  15.  16  ? — Was  Jesus  a  Rabbi  ? — Personality  in  connec- 
tion with  subjectivity,  temperament  and  character. — Compari- 
son of  the  parables  of  Jesus  with  those  of  the  Rabbins,  espe- 
cially in  regard  to  form. — Agreement  and  difference  between 
the  doctrine  of  Jesus  and  that  of  Moses  and  the  prophets. — 
Why  do  the  apostles  in  the  book  of  Acts  and  in  the  Epistles 
appeal  so  seldom  to  our  Lord's  own  words  ? 


CHAPTER  I. 
THE  SYNOPTICAL  GOSPELS. 

§  10. 
The  Kingdom  of  God. 

No  idea  is  so  prominent  in  the  instructions  of  the  Lord,  re- 
corded in  the  three  first  Gospels,  as  that  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  or  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  promised  of  old  by  the  proph- 
ets and  expected  by  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus.  The  Gospel 
which  he  preached  was  a  Gospel  of  the  kingdom,  and  this 
kingdom  itself  one  of  a  moral  and  religious  nature,  which,  un- 


The  Kingdom  of  God.  45 

limited  in  extent  and  eternal  in  duration,  in  its  tendency  to  unite 
mankind  and  make  them  holy  and  happy,  embraces  heaven  and 
earth. 

1.  In  studying  the  instructions  of  our  Lord  as  given  in  the 
Synoptical  Gospels,  we  must  begin  with  the  fundamental  idea 
by  which  they  are  pervaded.     It  is  that  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  (in  Mark  and  Luke)  or  of  heaven  (generally  in  Matthew), 
also  the  kingdom  of  his  Father  (Matt.  26,  29),  of  the  Father  of 
the  righteous  (Matt.  13,  43),  or  of  the  Son  of  man  (Matt  16, 
28).     "The  fundamental  idea  (says  KEUSS)  which  reappears 
every  moment  in  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  is  that  of  the  king- 
dom of  God."     Like  John  he  begins  from  the  first  with  this 
idea  (Mark  1,  15 ;  Comp.  Matt.  9,  35)  and  connects  his  preach- 
ing with  the  expectation  of  the  Old  Testament  (Ps.   22,  29 ; 
Obad.  21 ;  comp.  also  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  10,  10).     This  ex- 
pectation was  so  general  among  his  contemporaries  and  so  much 
cherished,  that  neither  He  nor  John  regarded  it  necessary  to  de- 
fine what  exactly  was  to  be  understood  by  this  term.     We  must 
derive  from  his  teachings  themselves,  the  idea  of  this  kingdom, 
which  is  only  twice  spoken  of  by  the  Apostles  (comp.  how- 
ever, 2  Pet.  1,  11 ;  Kev.  1,  9  and  Acts  1,  6),  but  very  frequent- 
ly in  his  own  discourses.     He  announces  the  Gospel  of  the 
kingdom  as  a  revealed  mystery  (Matt  13,  11).     From  the  dif- 
ferent individual  characters  of  it  given,  we  must  and  may  bring 
before  us  the  image  of  the  whole. 

2.  It  is  clear,  then,  (1)  that  this  kingdom  is  something  new. 
Since  it  was  to  come  only  in  the  fullness  of  time  (Matt  4,  17), 
it  did  not  previously  exist  on  earth.     It  is,  therefore,  not  mere- 
ly the  continuation  of  the  old  line  of  things,  but  the  beginning 
of  an  order  of  things  never  hitherto  seen  (Luke  10,  23.  24 ; 
comp.  Matt  26,  28).     (2)  It  is  something  now  actually  present. 
Where  He  comes,  it  appears  with  Him ;  it  is  already  in  the 
midst  of  those  who  inquire  when  He  shall  appear  (Luke  17,  20. 
21).     It  is  by  no  means  identical  with  eternal  blessedness ;  con- 
summated in  that,  it  is  here  virtually  and  essentially  present, 
and  although  not  of  earth  is  established  on  earth,  though  not 
with  external  show  or  noise.     It  is,  further,  (3)  something  spir- 
itual; it  belongs  to  a  higher  sphere  of  life  than  this  visible  ere- 


4:6  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

ation.  The  privileges,  duties  and  expectations  of  its  subjects 
are  chiefly,  though  not  exclusively,  of  a  spiritual  nature.  Its 
history  is  to  be  directly  the  reverse  of  that  of  other  kingdoms 
(Mat.  20,  25-28 ;  comp.  Luke  22,  24-27)  and  the  King  forbids 
all  needless  mingling  in  the  sphere  of  civil  jurisdiction  (Luke 
12,  11.  12).  The  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  must  not  even 
be  confounded  with  that  of  the  Christian  Church  or  communi- 
ty. The  Church  is  merely  the  external  and  inadequate  form 
of  manifestation  of  the  kingdom  of  Grod  (Matt.  13,  24-30 ;  47 
-50).  That  kingdom  itself  is  a  spiritual  society,  membership 
in  which  is  absolutely  impossible  without  a  personal  change  of 
heart  (Matt.  18,  3).  As  such  a  society,  it  is,  in  regard  to  its  ex- 
tent, (4)  unlimited.  Much  more  than  even  the  old  prophets 
(comp.  Is.  2,  2-4)  our  Lord  rises  above  all  narrow  particular- 
ism, and  proclaimed,  not  only  at  the  end  but  in  the  midst  and 
at  the  beginning  of  his  course,  the  all-embracing  character  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  (Matt.  5,  13.  14 ;  8,  11.  12).  Single  .ex- 
pressions, which  appear  to  breathe  another  spirit  (Matt.  10,  5 ; 
15,  23),  may  be  explained  by  reference  to  special  circumstances 
and  are  far  exceeded  in  number  by  others  of  a  different  char- 
acter (Matt.  28,  19 ;  Luke  24,  47  ;  Acts  1,  8).  No  wonder  that 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  (5)  unending,  and  no  more  limited  by 
time  than  by  space.  While  Moses  and  the  prophets  constantly 
point  to  better  days,  Jesus  knows  nothing  higher  than  the  king- 
dom which  he  came  to  found,  predicts  its  perfect  triumph  (Matt, 
24,  14 ;  26,  13),  and  promises  to  be  ever  with  his  disciples  (Acts 
28,  20).  Still,  that  which  is  so  distinctly  destined  for  eternity 
develops  itself  in  time.  The  kingdom  of  God  is  accordingly 
(6)  progressive ;  in  accordance  with  its  spiritual  nature,  advanc- 
ing step  by  step,  from  small  beginnings  and  with  astonishing 
success  (Matt.  13,  31-33 ;  Mark  4,  26-29).  For  this  must  his 
disciples  pray  (Matt.  6,  9)  and  labor  (Matt.  9,  37.  38).  It  is 
also  possible  that  it  will  be  taken  away  from  those  who  un- 
thankfully  scorn  it  (Matt.  21,  43).  Where,  however,  it  is  sought 
and  found,  it  is  (7)  unspeakably  glorious  and  blessed  (Matt.  13, 
44—46 ;  22,  2) ;  a  salvation,  for  the  loss  of  which  nothing  can 
compensate  (Luke  13,  25-30),  and  the  obtaining  of  which  is 
most  of  all  to  be  desired  as  the  pledge  of  every  other  blessing 
(Matt.  6,  33). 


The  Kingdom  of  God.  47 

3.  Combining  all  these  features,  we  see  the  correctness  of  the 
general  description,  given  above,  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  As 
His,  it  stands  in  direct  opposition  to  the  kingdom  of  darkness 
(Matt.  12,  26-28)  and  is  properly,  nothing  less  than  the  com- 
pleted theocracy,  pointed  out  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  now 
exempt  from  limitations  and  exalted  infinitely  above  the  ideal 
of  sacred  or  profane  antiquity.  "  The  kingdom  of  God,  as  the 
kingdom  of  Christ,  as  the  synthesis  of  the  glorification  of 
God  and  the  blessedness  of  the  children  of  God,  is  distinctly 
separate  from  all  religious  ideas  of  the  future  in  Heathenism,  Ju- 
daism and  Mohamedanism.  It  is  founded  upon  the  eternal  cov- 
enant of  God  with  man,  preliminarily  exhibited  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament and  fulfilled  in  the  New  "  (LANGE).  The  main  thought 
in  the  teachings  of  Jesus  is  ever  waiting  for  its  full  realization ; 
still  it  draws  nigh ;  and  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  no  vain 
dream,  the  personality  of  its  founder  is  the  pledge. 

Comp.  on  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  the  literature  re- 
ferred to  in  YAN  OOSTERZEE,  "Life  of  Jesus"  I  bl.  461  sqq. 
It  is  singular  that  SCHMID,  in  treating  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
should  have  assigned  to  it  the  third  place.  Much  better  NE- 
ANDER,  who  in  his  Life  of  Jesus,  draws  from  the  parables  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  a  whole  "system  of  truths."  In  regard  to  the 
light  in  which  the  Jewish  Kabbins  conceived  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  the  well  known  works  of  SCHOETTGEN  and  LIGHTFOOT 
may  be  consulted. 

Questions  for  consideration. — What  difference  may  be  observed 
between  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist  and  Jesus  as  re- 
gards the  kingdom  of  God  ? — Why  does  our  Lord  call  it  a 
HvaT^iov,  Mark  4,  11  ?  Main  import,  aim  and  connection  of 
the  parables,  Matt.  13. — Differences  of  shading,  even  in  these 
parables,  in  the  expression  of  the  same  leading  idea. — What 
is  the  meaning  of  Luke  17,  20.  21?— of  Matt.  11,  12.  13?— Is 
there  ground  for  the  opinion  that  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  in  the  teachings  of  our  Lord  gradually  underwent  some 
modification  ? — Why  is  this  idea  not  made  more  prominent  in 
the  instructions  of  the  Apostles  ? 


48  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

§  11. 

Its  Founder. 

The  founder  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is,  according  to  the  un- 
varying testimony  of  Jesus,  none  other  than  himself,  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God,  who  as  such  is  not  only  true  and 
sinless  man,  but  also  of  super-human  nature  and  dignity  to 
which  no  creature  in  heaven  or  on  earth  can  lay  claim. 

1.  The  kingdom  of  God,  which  the  best  part  of  the  nation 
expected  (Luke  23,  59),  was  not  merely  preached  by  Jesus  but 
actually  founded  upon  earth.     Both  in  figurative  and  in  literal 
language  he  declares  himself  to  have  come  to  bestow  what, 
without  Him,  men  seek  for  in  vain.     He  is  the  Heir  of  the 
vineyard  (Matt.  21,  38),  the  Bridegroom,  in  honor  of  whom  the 
guests  are  invited  (Matt.  22,  2),  the  King  (Matt.  25,  34),  who  in 
his  sovereignty  pronounces  upon  the  weal  or  woe  of  his  sub- 
jects.    He  never  indeed  expressly  says  "I  am  the  Messiah." 
Kather,  at  least  in  the  early  part  of  his  public  ministry  (Mark 
1,  34),  He  discourages  the  public  recognition  of  his  Messianic 
dignity.     But  still,  he  clearly  enough  indicates  himself  as  such 
(Matt.  11,  4,  5),  pronounces  blessed  those  who  bear  witness  to 
Him  as  the  Messiah  (Matt.  16,  13-17),  and  regards  a  compul- 
sory silence  in  regard  to  this  truth,  as  not  to  be  thought  of 
(Luke  19,  38-40).     Thus  he  connects  himself  with  the  Messi- 
anic expectation  of  his  contemporaries,  and  proposes  to  realize 
it  not  in  the  sphere  of  Judaism,  but  of  Prophetism,  especially 
of  those  prophets  who  predicted  the  suffering  as  well  as  the  glo- 
rified Christ  (Luke  18,  31). 

2.  In  the  epithet  "  Son  of  Man  "  employed  by  our  Lord  of 
himself  to  the  exclusion  of  every  other,  this  Messianic  conscious- 
ness is  expressed  by  a  peculiar  phrase.     It  is  borrowed  from  the 
prophetic  vision  recorded  in  Dan.  7,  13.  14,  and  is  an  allegorical 
mode  of  expressing  his  earthly  state  of  humiliation.     He  who 
chooses  this  title  for  himself,   shows  thereby  that  he  had  a 
knowledge  originally  above  that  of  man,  and  that  among  men 
he  lived  in  a  state  of  temporary  humiliation.     Hence  it  was  that 


Its  Founder.  49 

the  name,  with  few  exceptions  (Acts  7,  56  ;  Eev.  1,  13  ;  14,  14), 
was  no  longer  used  by  his  disciples  of  their  Master  after  He  had 
passed  from  his  life  of  humiliation  to  that  of  exaltation.  Ex- 
pressions like  those  in  Matt.  12,  8  ;  13,  41  ;  16,  28  and  elsewhere 
would  sound  strangely  indeed,  if  He  who  uttered  them  had  se- 
lected the  title,  Son  of  Man,  merely  to  describe  himself  "  as  a 
poor  child  of  Adam  and  as  an  object  of  the  divine  favor  " 


3.  The  question  how  and  whereby  the  Messianic  conscious- 
ness was   developed,   belongs    not  so  much  to   the   Biblical 
Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  as  to  the  Life  of  Jesus.     The 
first    simply   affirms  the  fact  that  our   Lord   possessed   this 
consciousness   at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry,  and  that  it 
imparted  a  very  distinct  character  to  his  labors.     "  The  belief 
in  his  Messiahship  Jesus  had  at  an  early  period,  after  the  days 
of  John  "  (KEIM).     We  misunderstand  and  pervert  the  narra- 
tive in  Matt.  16,  13-17,  if  we  make  it  mean  that  before  this 
conversation  He  had  never  deeply  felt  or  strongly  declared  his 
Messianic  dignity  (CoLANi).     Expressions  like  those  in  Matt.  5, 
11.  12  ;  7,  21-23  ;  10,  32.  33.  37-42  ;   12,  6-8,  candidly  con- 
sidered, decidedly  prove  the   contrary,  as  do   also  narratives 
like  those  in  Luke  4,  16-22  ;  7,  18-23.     The  growing  clear- 
ness and  strength  with  which  our  Lord,  towards  the  end  of 
his  life,  spoke  of  his  Messiahship,  was  not  the  result  of  the 
process  of  internal  development,  but  of  the  relations  which 
developed  themselves  in  connection  with  the  plan  of  his  work. 

4.  But  although  he  distinguishes  himself  from  every  man, 
he  is  far  from  feeling  himself  united  with  mankind  only  in 
appearance  :  on  the  contrary  he  lays  manifest  emphasis  upon 
the  fact   of  his  true  humanity.     He  holds  himself  uncondi- 
tionally subject  to  the  rule  that  man  is  not  to  live  by  bread 
alone  (Matt.  4,  4),  attributes  to  himself  body  (Luke  24,  39),  soul 
(Matt.  26,  38)  and  spirit  (Luke  23,  46),  and  compares  himself 
with  other  men  (Matt  12,  41.  42).     He  even  bears  distinct  tes- 
timony as  Son  of  David,  to  this  his  human  origin  (Matt.  22,  42). 
In  one  respect  only,  does  he  feel  and  indicate  himself  to  be  dis- 
tinguished, as  man,  from  other  men  ;  in  this,  namely,  that  He, 
the  lowly  one,  never  attributes  any  imperfection  to  himself. 
On  the  contrary,  he  clearly  distinguishes  himself  from  those  who 

3 


50  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

are  evil  (Luke  11,  33),  calls  the  obedient  children  of  God  his 
kindred  (Matt.  12,  50),  and  presents  himself  as  a  Physician  in 
contrast  with  those  who  are  morally  diseased.  While  he 
repeatedly  forgives  sins  (Matt.  9,  2)  he  never  confesses  them, 
not  even  at  his  baptism  by  John  (Matt.  3,  16).  He  knows 
that  he  is  subject  to  temptation  (Matt.  16,  23 ;  26,  41 ;  comp. 
Mark  12,  15),  but  never  in  his  case  does  this  liability  result  in 
falling,  nor  the  temptation  in  sin.  God  alone  he  calls  good 
(Matt.  19,  17),  but  shows  that  he  possesses  this  character  him- 
self by  the  very  fact  that  he  does  not  appropriate  this  title  of 
honor. 

5.  What  has  been  said,  thus  far,  does  not  exhaust  all  that 
was  embraced  in  the  consciousness  of  our  Lord  in  regard  to 
himself.  As  a  true  and  holy  man,  he  felt  himself  exalted  above 
every  creature  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Not  merely  above  kings 
and  prophets  (Matt.  13, 17)  does  he  place  himself,  but  above  the 
angels  (Matt.  13,  41 ;  26,  54 ;  Mark  13,  32),  and  speaks  always 
of  "  his,"  never,  as  associated  with  others,  of  "  our  "  Father.  In 
the  very  words  he  uses,  "  is  come "  in  speaking  of  himself 
(Luke  19,  10)  shines  forth  the  consciousness  of  an  earlier  exis- 
tence; still  more  strongly  does  the  consciousness  of  divine 
dignity  manifest  itself  in  the  forgiving  of  sins  (Matt.  9,  2)  and 
in  many  other  declarations  and  promises,  which  on  the  lips  of 
the  most  godly  man  would  sound  absolutely  blasphemous  (see 
e.  g.  Matt.  10,  32-38  ;  comp.  Matt.  22,  37,  38),  and  most  clearly 
of  all  in  more  than  one  parable  (Matt.  21,  37 ;  22,  2  ;  Luke 
19,  12).  With  this  consciousness,  he  calls  himself  greater  than 
the  temple  (Matt.  12,  6),  the  Wisdom  of  God  (Luke  11,  49),  the 
Lord  of  David  (Matt.  22,  45),  ascribes  to  his  word  an  unending 
duration  (Matt.  24,  35),  and  promises  to  his  disciples  the  enjoy- 
ment of  His  presence  beyond  the  region  of  time  and  space 
(Matt.  18,  20 ;  28,  20).  Still  he  feels  himself  subordinate  to 
the  Father,  both  in  power  (Matt.  20,  23  ;  Acts  1,  7)  and  know- 
ledge (Mark  13,  32).  To  Him  with  reverence  and  gratitude  he 
looks  up  in  prayer  and  thanksgiving.  But  the  relation  itself  be- 
tween Him  and  the  Father  is  nevertheless  so  entirely  unique, 
that  to  the  finite  understanding  it  ever  remains  inexplicable, 
(Matt.  11,  27  ;  comp.  Luke  10,  22).  He  who  thus  speaks  knows 
and  feels  himself  to  be  not  merely  a  child  of  God  morally,  but 


The  Supreme  Ruler.  61 

the  Son  of  God  in  the  supernatural  sense  of  the  word,  of  heav- 
enly nature,  and  appearing  on  earth  as  the  Messiah  in  the  ful- 
fillment of  God's  counsel.  Not  until  the  actual  utterance  of 
these  words  by  our  Lord  is  arbitrarily  disputed  or  their  meaning 
weakened,  can  it  be  maintained  with  the  least  plausibility  that 
the  Christ  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels  is  nothing  according  to 
his  own  declarations,  but  an  excellent  man  annointed  with  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

Comp.  YAN  OOSTERZEE,  "Life  of  Jesus"  I.  bl.  475-477: 
"  Christology  "  IT.  bl.  40-55,  and  the  literature  there  given,  to 
which  maybe  added  COLANI,  "  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Messianic 
beliefs  of  his  time"  Paris,  1864.  On  the  title,  Son  of  Man,  VAN 
DER  POT  and  TIDEMAN  in  the  Waarh.  in  Liefde,  1846  and  1862. 
On  the  supernatural  character  of  our  Lord,  SCHNECKENBURGER 
"  On  the  Divinity  of  Christ  according  to  the  Synoptical  Gospels"  in 
the  Stud  u.  Kritih,  1829  ;  JONKER,  "  Inquiry  into  the  relation, 
in  which  Jesus,  according  to  the  three  first  Gospels,  was  conscious  of 
standing  to  God."  Utrecht,  1864. 

Questions  for  consideration :  Survey  and  criticism  of  the  prin- 
cipal opinions  concerning  the  original  significance  and  design 
of  the  name,  Son  of  man  (COLANI,  HOEKSTRA,  etc.). — 
How  far  is  progress  to  be  observed,  in  the  discourses  of  our 
Lord,  in  regard  to  his  Messianic  dignity  ? — Historical  and  psy- 
chological significance  of  the  conversation  at  Cesarea  Philippi, 
Matt.  16,  13-17.— Eelation  of  the  terms  "  Messiah  "  and  "  Son 
of  God." — Genuineness,  meaning  and  force  of  the  passage 
Matt.  11,  27  ;  Luke  10,  22.— Why  does  not  our  Lord  in  the 
Synoptical  Gospels  make  more  prominent  his  supernatural 
nature  and  dignity  ? 

§  12. 
The  Supreme  Ruler. 

The  dominion,  which  the  Lord  possesses  in  the  Kingdom  of 
God  is  not  self-derived,  but  is  received  from  the  Father.  This 
Father  he  proclaims  as  the  only  true  God,  a  personal  being  and 
one  ever  acting,  who  reveals  himself  especially  through  the 
Son  to  mankind,  and  through  the  Holy  Spirit  produces  every- 


52  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

thing  truly  good  in  men.  The  purity  and  elevation  of  this 
representation  of  God  proves  that  he  who  made  it  spoke  only 
the  truth  in  the  representation  of  himself. 

1.  Exalted  as  our  Lord  described  himself  to   be,  He  most 
deeply  felt  and  fully  recognized  his  dependence.     The  power 
He  possesses  is  given  (Matt.  28,  18),  and  the  first  place  in  the 
kingdom  of  God  can  no  one  have  except  him  for  whom  the 
Father  hath  prepared  it  (Matt.   20,  23).     The  Father  stands 
thus  above  the  Son  (Mark  13,  36),  reveals  Him  in  the  heart 
(Matt.  16,  17)  and  always  hears  his  requests  (Matt.  26,  §4).     On 
the  other  hand,  the  Son  desires  nothing  more  earnestly  than 
that  the  will  of  the  Father  be  done,  (Matt.  26,  39)  and  reveals 
this  Father,  who  thus  alone  becomes  known,  (Matt.   11,  27). 
The  Lord  always  assumes  that  man  may  be  brought,  not  to  a 
complete,  but  to  a  pure  and  sufficient  knowledge  of  God. 

2.  Our  Lord  never  gives,  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  a  logical 
or  scientific  definition  of  the  Divine  Being.     He  silently  builds 
upon  the  representation  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  correctness  of 
which  he  thereby  recognizes.     Least  of  all  does  he  undertake 
to  prove  the  existence  of  God.     He   sees   God  in  everything 
and  shows  him  to  others  in  every  work  of  his  hands.     He 
assumes  his  unity  (Matt.  4,  10  ;  19,  17),  and  at  the  same  time 
his  personal  existence,  in  consequence  of  which  He  is  exalted, 
not  merely  as  the  Supreme  Power,  but  also  as  the  conscious 
and  independent  Will,  above  the  whole  creation  and  above 
every  one  of  its  parts. 

3.  Although   our  Lord  frequently  speaks   simply  of  God, 
especially   in  a  mixed  multitude  (Luke   18,  7  ;   comp.  Matt. 
19,   17),  he  generally,  in  addressing  his  disciples,  calls  him, 
Father.    In  this,  and  not  in  the  recognition  of  God's  Sovereignty 
(although  recognized  in  Matt.  11,  25),  lies  the  peculiarity  of  His 
teachings  respecting  God.     In  calling  God,  Father,  he  describes 
first  of  all  God's  special  relation  to  Himself,  and  next  the  point 
of  view  from  which  he  would  have  his  disciples  regard  the 
Supreme  Being.     That  He  is  the  Father  of  all  men,  inasmuch 
as  he  has  created  all,  Jesus  would  certainly  never  have  denied, 
but  in  this  broad  sense  he  never  uses  the  word.     He  means  by 
it  not  so  much  a  natural  as  a  moral  and  spiritual  relation,  the 


A*4^^ 

it  I**' 


-7tfW  J**~   ~"  ' 

, 


The  Supreme  Ruler.  53 

direct  result  of  which  is  communion  with  God  and  resemblance 
to  Him.  Whatever  may  be  the  feelings  of  God  as  a  Father 
towards  the  lost  sinner  (Luke  15,  11-32,  the  prodigal  son)  the 
name,  children  of  God,  is  given  only  to  those  who  in  love  and 
purity  exhibit  the  image  of  the  Father  (Matt.  5,  9.  45.  48),  and 
who  as  such  are  the  opposite  of  the  children  of  the  wicked  one 
(Matt.  13,  38). 

4.  Jesus   ascribes  to   God  no   other  attributes  than    those 
attributed  to  Him  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  while  there  the 
holiness  of  God  is  made  prominent,  love  now  takes  the  first  place 
and  is  represented  as  the  center  of  all  God's  perfections,  and 
as  that  in  which  He  is  proposed  to  man  for  imitation  (Matt. 
5,  48 ;   Luke  6,  36).      The  three  principal  forms  of  love, — 
Mercy,  (Luke  6,  36)  Patience,  (Luke  18,  7)  and  Grace,  (v.  14) 
— are  all  mentioned  in  the  teachings  of  our  Lord.     No  wonder 
that  such  a  God  is  called  the  perfect  source  of  every  good  gift 
(Luke  11,  13). 

5.  The  God  of  Jesus  Christ  is  neither  the  God  of  Deism 
nor  of  Pantheism.     He  never  ceases  to  stand  in  immediate  con- 
nection with  his  creatures.     He  knows  exactly  the  wants  of  all, 
and  is  able  to  supply  them  (Matt.  6,  8  ;  19,  26),  but  this  know- 
ledge and  power  stand  in  the  service  of  a  government,  which 
embraces  the  minutest  particulars  (Matt.  10,  29,  30 ;  18,  14). 
While  absolutely  unlimited,  this  government  is  so  perfect,  that 
complained  of  as  it  may  be,  it  can  never  be  improved  (Matt.  20, 
13-15).     While  the  slightest  good  deed  is  rewarded  (Matt.  10, 
41.  42)  evil  is  punished  according  to  the  principles  of  the  most 
exalted  rightousness  (Luke  12,  47.  48),  and  the  manifestation 
of  this  righteous  government  of  the  world  is  also  the  answer  to 
the  persevering  prayer  of  faith  (Luke  18, 1-8).     Such  prayer  has 
not  only  a  sanctifying  influence  upon  him  who  offers  it,  but  it 
obtains  sure  and  abundant  answers  from  God,  and  is  the  means 
of  relief  ordained  by  Him  in  all  our  wants  (Luke  11,  5-8), 
though  not  necessary  to  be  expressed  in  a  multitude  of  words 
(Matt  6,  6-8). 

6.  If  God  is  thus  described  as  a  Father,  it  is  because  it  has 
pleased  Him  to  reveal  himself  as  such.     This  he  has  done  and 
does  even  in  nature  (Matt.  6,  25-34),  and  in  the  history  of  man- 
kind (Matt.  19,  4-6)  and  of  Israel  (Matt.  21,  33-44),  but  above 


54  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

all  in  the  sending  of  his  Son  (v.  87).  But  this  revelation,  al- 
though designed  for  all,  is  believed  and  received  only  in  a  dis- 
tinct state  of  mind  and  heart  (Matt.  5,  8;  11,  25;  16,  17). 
Where  this  exists  men  obtain  a  knowledge  of  God  and  his  will 
which  is  denied  to  the  wise  ones  of  the  world  (Luke  10,  £1). 

7.  As  the  Father  reveals  himself  through  the  Son,  he  pro- 
duces what  is  good  in  man  through  the  Holy  Spirit,   a  gift 
which  hence  is  represented  as  including  all  good  gifts  (Matt.  7, 
11 ;  Luke  11,  13).     Concerning  the  being  and  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  our  Lord  gives  but  a  few  intimations.     He  declares 
that  the  Spirit  dwells  in  Him  (Matt.  12,  28)  but  promises  him 
also  to  his  disciples  for  their  support  (Matt.  10,  19.  20)  and  even 
to  all  who  seek  for  salvation  and  pray  for  his  help  (Matt.  7, 11), 
while  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  alone  absolutely  beyond 
forgiveness  (Matt  12,  32).     The  divine  character  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  he  clearly  enough  affirms,  in  combining  the  name  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  in  the  rite  of  baptism,  with  the  names  of  the  Son 
and  of  the  Father  (Matt.  28,  19). 

8.  From  all  this  it  is  manifest,  how  infinitely  our  Lord's 
teachings  concerning  the  Deity,  stand  above  those  of  profane 
and  even  sacred  antiquity.     Neither  in  the  writings  of  the  most 
eminent  heathen  philosophers,  nor  of  Moses  and  the  prophets, 
do  we  find  such  a  representation  of  God's  fatherly  love  as  in  the 
Gospel  of  the  kingdom.     In  the  Old  Testament  indeed,  God  is 
called  the  Father  of  the  Israelitish  people  (Deut.  32,  5 ;  Is.  63, 
16 ;  Mai.  1,  6) ;  his  pity  to  those  who  fear  him  (Ps.  103, 13)  and 
to  the  unfortunate  (Ps.  68,  6)  is  compared  to  the  love  of  a  fa- 
ther toward  his  children.     But  never  is  this  name  given  to  him 
in  his  relation  to  those  who  are  not  of  Israel ;  never  also  was 
such  a  breadth  and  fulness  of  love  ascribed  to  him  as  in  the  ut- 
terances of  our  Lord.     The  image  of  fatherly,  and  especially  of 
forgiving  love  to  those  who  themselves  have  been  unforgiving, 
we  never  find  in  such  purity,  outside  of  his  instructions.     More 
magnificent  descriptions  of  God's  majesty  than  those  which  the 
Old  Testament  contain,  even  He  did  not  give,  but  deeper,  more 
spiritual  and  more  exalted  representations  of  the  nature  and  feel- 
ings of  God  than  his  we  seek  elsewhere  in  vain.     Moreover  his 
teaching  is  so  preeminently  practical  that  we  cannot  speak  of  it 
as  a  doctrine  concerning  God,  or  Theology,  but  only  as  a  doc- 
trine concerning  religion  and  life. 


Its  Subjects.  55 

9.  The  representation  of  God  given  by  our  Lord  is  evidence 
also  of  the  truth  of  what  he  declares  concerning  his  own  super- 
human origin  and  dignity  (see  §  11,  5).  To  the  Son  alone  could 
it  be  given  to  look  so  deeply  into  the  heart  of  the  Father. 
Neither  the  Semitic  race,  nor  the  beauty  of  the  scenery  about 
Nazareth  (B-ENAN),  nor  the  instruction  of  any  human  school, 
explains  the  secret  of  his  representation  of  God,  but  solely  his 
own  personality.  It  was  not  because  this  man  had  the  deepest 
religious  feeling  that  God  revealed  the  most  in  and  through 
Him,  but  it  was  because  God  was  in  Him  as  in  no  one  else,  that 
his  teachings  concerning  God  could  be  the  most  elevated  and 
pure.  Here  too  are  enigmas;  "it  belongs  to  the  humility  and 
the  power  of  science  to  confess  that  there  are  mysteries  which 
it  has  not  fathomed."  (TiSGHENDORF). 

Comp.  SCHMID  I,  126  ff.,  KEUSS,  I,  237  ff. ;  MEYBOOM,  two 
essays  "  On  the  Jewish  and  Judaeo-theocratic  Theology  of  Jesus  " 
in  Waarh.  in  Liefde,  1853,  1854;  WITTICHEN.  "The  idea  of 
Grod  as  the  Father,  a  Contribution  to  the  Biblical  Theology  especial- 
ly of  the  Synoptical  Discourses  of  Jesus"  Gott.  1865. 

Questions  for  consideration. — Agreement  and  difference  be- 
tween our  Lord's  teachings  concerning  God  and  those  of  the 
Old  Testament. — Their  superiority  to  those  of  Judaism. — How 
far  is  the  legitimacy  of  natural  theology  recognized  by  Jesus. — 
In  what  respects  does  his  doctrine  concerning  God  transcend 
that  of  the  most  distinguished  philosophers  of  antiquity  ? — May 
the  personality  also  of  the  Holy  Spirit  be  shown  from  the  in- 
structions of  our  Lord  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels  ? — Does  his 
doctrine  concerning  God  have  a  Unitarian  or  Trinitarian  char- 
acter ? — Criticism  of  the  naturalistic  explanations  of  the  origin 
of  this  doctrine. 

§  13. 
Its  Subjects. 

As  the  holy  angels  are  servants,  and  the  spirits  of  darkness 
enemies,  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  so  men  likewise  are  called 
to  become  its  subjects.  What  our  Lord  teaches  concerning  the 
nature  and  constitution  of  man  proves  that  they  are  capable  of 


56  Biblical  Tlieology  of  the  New  Testament. 

this ;  what  he  declares  concerning  the  sin  and  misery  of  man- 
kind clearly  shows  their  need  of  the  salvation  of  the  kingdom 
of  God. 

1.  Although  the  kingdom  of  God  is  established  on  earth,  it 
is  far  from  finding  its  principal  servants  here.     In  the  prayer 
given  by  our  Lord  to  his  disciples,  Matt.  6,  10,  we  are  taught 
that  he  proposes  to  make  this  earth  like  heaven,  in  men's  doing 
of  God's  will.     He  assumes  that  the  angels  stand  in  very  dis- 
tinct relations  to  this  kingdom.     He  repeatedly  describes  them, 
not  as  momentary  personifications  of  blind  natural  forces,  but 
as  personal  beings,  immaterial,  sinless  and  immortal  (Luke  20, 
34-36),  who  form  together  a  heavenly  family,  in  the  presence  of 
whom  the  Father  rejoices  over  the  salvation  of  the  lost  (Luke 
15,  7.  10).     They  feel  a  peculiar  interest  in  the  weak  and  small 
(Matt.  8,  10),  stand  at  the  side  of  the  pious  in  the  hour  of 
death  (Luke  16,  22),  and  are  expressly  engaged  in  the  service  of 
the  Son  of  man  both  in  his  sufferings  (Matt.  26,  54)  and  in  the 
manifestations  of  his  glory  (Matt.  13,  41).     Exalted  as  they  are, 
however,  in  knowledge  and  holiness  (Matt.  24,  36  ;  Luke  9,  26)? 
they  stand  in  no  other  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  God  than  that 
of  reverential  servants.     That  they  exercise  a  personal  guardian- 
ship over  each  citizen  of  this  kingdom  is  not  taught  in  Matt.  18, 
10,  nor  do  the  words  of  Jesus  justify  any  superstitious  worship 
of  angels.     His  Angelology  embraces  no  magical  elements,  like 
the  Old  Testament  Apocryphal  books  (the  book  of  Tobit,  for 
example)  but  is  purely  religious  and  ethical. 

2.  In  the  same  unambiguous  way  our  Lord  speaks  concerning 
the  evil  or  fallen  spirits.     He  never  teaches  an  eternal  principle 
of  evil,  but  repeatedly,  a  personal  power,  in  hostility  to  the 
kingdom  of  God.     Not  evil,  but  the  Evil  One,  is  the  enemy 
against  whom  he  teaches  his  disciples  to  pray  (Matt.  6,  12).     He 
calls  him  Beelzebub  (Matt.  12,  27),  Satan  (Luke  22,  31),  in  gen- 
eral the  enemy  (Luke  10,  19),  who  sows  tares  (Matt.   13,  39)- 
He  is  properly  the  destroyer  (Matt.  10,  28),  for  whom  an  eternal 
destruction  is  waiting  (Matt.  25,  41).     In  his  deadly  efforts,  how- 
ever, he  is  resisted  by  the  intercessory  prayer  of  our  Lord 
(Luke  22,  32),  who  beholds  him,  in  advance,  brought  low  (Luke 
10,  18).     But  for  the  present  he  is  the  producer  of  all  kinds  of 


Its  Subjects.  57 

misery,  and  even  of  physical  suffering  (Luke  13,  16),  and  the 
cause  also  of  the  mysterious  disease  which  is  ascribed  to  demo- 
niacal agency  (Matt.  17,  2  L).  There  is  not  a  single  argument  to 
show  that  our  Lord,  in  these  or  similar  utterances,  accommo- 
dated himself,  against  his  own  convictions,  to  the  narrow  spirit 
of  his  time,  while  there  is  much  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with 
such  a  supposition.  He  regards  the  casting  out  of  demons  as  a 
principal  part  of  his  work  (Luke  13,  32),  which  he  directly  as- 
signs to  his  disciples  (Luke  9,  1 ;  10,  19),  and  beholds,  on  the 
night  before  his  death,  the  powers  of  darkness  as  if  in  closed 
*ranks  arrayed  against  him  (Luke  22,  53).  Nothing  but  an  ar- 
bitrary exegesis  can  understand  this  in  a  weaker  sense  than  the 
connection  of  the  language  and  the  spirit  of  that  age  require. 
Yet  an  impartial  criticism  will  not  regard  itself  as  discharged 
from  the  duty  of  distinguishing  between  the  main  thought 
expressed  in  such  declarations,  and  the  peculiar  form  in  which 
it  is  clothed  with  reference  to  the  mode  of  thinking  among 
those  then  living  (see  especially  Luke  11,  24-27). 

3.  We  stand  upon  firmer  ground,   when  we   come  to  our 
Lord's  answer  to  the  question  often  asked,  "  What  is  man."     So 
much  we  see  at  once,  that  he  does  not  hold  man  and  mankind 
as  of  no  consequence.     Just  the  opposite  appears  in  his  atten- 
tion to  the  sports  of  children  (Matt.  11,  16.  17),  his  vindication 
of  their  song  of  praise  (Matt.  21,  15 ;  comp.  Ps.  8,  5),  his  ap- 
preciation of  the  childlike  character  (Matt.   18,   3.  4).     Only 
once  do  we  read  that  he  was  displeased  and  that  was  at  the 
turning  away  of  children  (Mark  10,  14) ;  and  as  if  in  repara- 
tion, he  promises  them  his  kingdom.     It  has  been  erroneously 
inferred  from  such  expressions  (SCHENKEL)  that  redemption  is 
not  necessary  for  all,  since  children,  as  such,  are  already  mem- 
bers of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.     Then  their  mothers  would 
have  no  blessing  [for  faithfully  training  them]  and  our  Lord 
would  contradict  what  he  elsewhere  affirms  (e.  g.  Matt.  15,  19) 
concerning  the  universal  depravity  of  man.     Still  it  is  clear 
that  he  recognizes  in  children  a  receptivity  for  his  kingdom, 
which  is  often  sought  for  in  vain  among  adults,  and  also,  that 
he  proceeds  upon  an  ideal  of  marriage  (Matt.  19,  4-6)  far  higher 
than  that  of  his  contemporaries. 

4.  Concerning  the  nature  and  constitution  of  man,  as  related 


58  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

to  the  kingdom  of  God,  he  gives  the  most  explicit  testimony. 
Man  is  more  than  the  lilies  and  the  verdure  of  the  field  (Matt. 

6,  25.  30),  than  sparrow  or  sheep  (Matt.  10,  29-31 ;  12, 12),  than 
ox  or  ass  (Luke  14,  5).*    Like  these  he  is  a  creature  of  God 
(Matt.  19,  4),  but  he  is  far  exalted  above  these,  in  being  called 
to  the  kingdom  of  God  (Luke  12,  32)  and  capacitated  to  love 
God  and  to  be  conformed  to  his  image  (Matt.  5,  48). 

Our  Lord  distinguishes  in  man  between  body  and  soul,  flesh 
and  spirit  (Matt.  10,  28  ;  26,  41) ;  it  is  uncertain  whether  he  dis- 
tinguishes also  between  soul  and  spirit.  It  is  enough  that  he 
represents  the  centre  of  human  personality  to  be  the  heart,- 
which  may  be  not  only  without  feeling,  but  without  understand- 
ing (Luke  24,  25),  and  from  which  proceed  all  evil  thoughts 
(Matt.  15,  19).  The  word,  conscience,  never  occurs  in  his  teach- 
ings, but  that  he  attached  to  this  faculty  its  full  value  is  clear 
from  his  declaration  concerning  the  inner  eye  of  man  (Matt.  6, 
22.  23).  Remarkable  in  this  connection  is  the  parable  of  the 
field,  which  of  itself  (a^w^iTrj)  bringeth  forth  fruit  from  the  seed, 
because  it  is  soil  and  not  rock  (Mark  4,  28).  There  is  thus  re- 
ceptivity for  the  divine  in  man,  and  this  becomes  spontaneity 
wherever,  in  the  use  of  appropriate  means,  everything  which 
hinders  the  working  of  the  Gospel  is  taken  away  from  the  heart. 
On  this  ground  our  Lord  calls  men  to  think  (Matt.  11,  15  ;  13, 
14),  and  to  take  heed  what  and  how  they  hear  (Mark  4,  24 ; 
Luke  8,  18).  He  appeals  to  their  natural  reason  and  sensibili- 
ties (Matt.  21,  31 ;  Luke  11,  5-8),  and  exhorts  them  to  judge 
justly  (Luke  12,  56.  57).  Yet  he  places  the  disposition  in  man 
above  intellect  (Matt.  5,  3.  8)  and  speaks  therefore,  with  empha- 
sis, of  a  good  treasure  of  the  heart,  out  of  which  the  good  must 
proceed  (Luke  6,  45).  The  internal  worth  of  a  man  depends  not 
upon  what  he  knows,  but  upon  what  he  wills.  Moreover  he  has 
the  tremendous  power  of  choosing  between  life  and  death  (Matt. 

7,  13.  14),  and  with  this  freedom  with  which  he  is  endowed  is 
connected  a  fearful  responsibility  (Matt.  23,  37).   In  a  word,  man 
is  created  for  something  higher  than  this  world.     His  soul  may 
become  debased,  but  never  extinguished  (Luke  12,  4.  5  ;  16, 
19-27),  and  Sadduceeism  is  therefore  a  monstrous  error  (Matt. 
22,  29).     The  losing  of  life  leads  to  the  saving  of  it  in  the  high- 

*  Comp.  Tischendorf. 


Its  Subjects.  59 

est  sense  of  the  word  (Matt.  10,  39  ;  16,  25),  and  in  their  personal 
communion  with  the  ever  living  God  the  pledge  is  given  to  the 
pious  of  their  everlasting  existence  (Matt  22,  30 ;  Luke  20,  38). 

5.  As,  on  the  one  hand,  this  high  rank  makes  man  capable  of 
the  salvation  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  so,  on  the  other,  he  has 
the  greatest  need  of  it.     He  is  a  sinner  before  God  and  misera- 
ble in  his  own  sight.     To  maintain  that  the  Synoptical  Christ 
presents  a  doctrine  of  sin  inferior  in  depth  to  that  of  some  of 
the  Apostles  is  to  take  a  very  superficial  view  of  his  declara- 
tions on  this  point.     Paul  presents  sin  in  the  light  of  his  own 
experience ;  Christ  in  that  of  the  law  and  of  his  own  spotless 
perfection. 

6.  The  absolute  universality  of  sin  is  assumed  by  our  Lord 
rather  than  expressly  taught.     He   distinguishes,   indeed,  be- 
tween the  moral  states  of  men  (Matt.  5,  45  ;  Luke  8,  4-15),  but 
there  is  no  proof  that  he  regards  any  man  as  sinless.     The  honest 
and  good  heart  (Luke  8, 15)  is  not  one  which  is  absolutely  pure, 
but  simply  upright  and  well  disposed,  and  hence  ready  to  re- 
ceive the  seed  of  the  Word.     He  addresses  his  contemporaries 
as  those  who  are  evil  in  contrast  with  the  holy  Father  (Luke  11, 
13)  and  regards  them  as  sick  and  needing  a  physician  (Matt.  9, 
13).     The  well,  whom  he  contrasts  with  them,  are  in  his  view 
no  more  entitled  to  this  name  absolutely,  than  are  the  ninety 
and  nine  just  persons  (Luke  15,  7)  who  need  no  repentance,  to 
be  regarded  as  perfectly  righteous.     Even  his  sincere  disciples 
must  constantly  pray  for  forgiveness  (Matt.  6,  12),  and  in  con- 
trast with  the  prodigal  son  in  the  parable,  he  exhibits  one  not 
perfectly  obedient,  but  unloving,  whose  self-righteousness  is  still 
more  repulsive  than  the  unrighteousness  of  the  other.     No  man 
is  unconditionally  good  (Matt.  19,  17) ;  hence  it  is  required  of 
all,  without  exception,  that  they  be  converted  (Mark  1,  15). 

7.  The  origin  of  sin  is,  psychologically,  to  be  sought  in  the 
heart  (Matt.  15,  19),  or  more  definitely  in  the  weakness  of  the 
flesh,  which,  hence,  even  for  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,  has  a 
dangerous  side  (Matt.  26,  41).     Beyond  this,  it  is  to  be  traced 
to  the  devil,  the  crafty  worker  of  evil  (Matt  13,  39),  who  is 
ever  seeking  to  lead  men  to  ruin  (Luke  22,  31).     Every  one 
stands  exposed  to  temptation,  and  unless  he  watch  and  pray 
must  fall  into  his  snares.     Temptation  (nstgaafids)  and  offence 


60  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 


are,  according  to  this,  correlative  terms,  and  signify 
whatever  leads  men  to  sinful  deeds  and  makes  them,  in  their 
obstinate  persistence  in  wrong  doing,  children  of  the  devil  (Matt. 
13,  38). 

8.  The  nature  of  sin  is  never  expressly  denned  by  Jesus. 
The  word  fyagria  always  signifies  in  the  Synoptical  Grospels  the 
sinful  action,  never  the  sinful  principle.     That  our  Lord,  how- 
ever, recognizes  the  existence  of  the  latter,  in  all  its  strength,  is 
plain  from  Matt.  15,  19  ;  comp.  5,  28.     The  conduct  in  which  it 
manifests  itself  is  in  its  nature  unrighteousness,  lawlessness 
(ttvopila,  Matt.  7,  23  ;  13,  41  ;  comp.  1  John  3,  4),  while  its  differ- 
ent forms  bear  the  name  of  transgressions  (naQannb^aTa).     Our 
Lord  describes  in  a  striking  way  the  progress  of  the  sinful  prin- 
ciple, in  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  :  —  first,  inwardly  es- 
tranged from  his  father  ;  next,  outwardly  separated  from  him, 
and  led  on  by  a  false  independence  from  one  sin  to  another,  and 
plunged,  in  consequence,  into  the  deepest  misery. 

9.  That  sin  makes  man  miserable,  lies  in  the  nature  of  the 
case.      Under  its   control  he   becomes  in  character  a  sinner 
(tiiuocQTwttg),  who,  as  such,  stands  no  higher  than  the  despised 
publican.     The  unity  of  his  inner  life  is  lost  in  a  sad  discord 
(Matt.  6,  24),  and  even  his  life  itself  is  another  name  for  death 
(Luke  15,  24  ;  comp.  9,  60).     In  this  state  the  sinner,  left  to 
himself,  sinks  into  ever  deeper  misery.     He  incurs  a  blindness, 
which  may  be  pleaded  in  the  way  of  excuse  (Luke  23,  34),  but 
which,  nevertheless,  is  in  itself  punishable.     It  leads  to  hard- 
ness of  heart  in  spite  of  the  most  earnest  warnings  (Luke  8,  8  ; 
18,  10),  and  this  reaches  its  extreme  point  in  the  obstinate  enmity 
directed  even  against  known  truth,  which  Christ  describes  as 
the  only  sin  which  is  never  forgiven  (Matt.  12,  31,  32). 

10.  No  wonder,  therefore,  that  sin  is  threatened  with  a  pun- 
ishment  all    the   more  terrible   in  proportion    to   the    privi- 
leges of  the   transgressor   (Matt.    11,  20.  24;     Luke    12,  47. 
48).      For    sin  necessarily   involves    indebtedness,    the    pay- 
ment of  which  on  the  ground  of  law  can  be  justly  demanded, 
but   which    is    so    entirely   impossible   for    the  guilty,    that 
nothing  is  left  to  him  except  to  beg  for  forgiveness   (Matt. 
18,  28  ;  Luke  7,  41  ;  12,  59  ;  18,  13).  Hence  forgiveness  is  to  be 
regarded  as  essentially  a  gracious  acquittal  from  deserved  pun- 


Its  Subjects.  61 

ishment,  and  where  it  is  not  bestowed,  the  transgressor  has  ev- 
ery thing  to  fear.  Under  different  forms  of  illustration,  our  Lord 
sets  forth  the  retributions  of  eternity  (Mark  9,  43-50),  which 
with  all  their  variety,  will  be  invariably  righteous  (Luke  16, 
19-25).  But  never  does  he  furnish  distinct  ground  for  expect- 
ation that  these  punishments  will  at  some  future  time  come  to 
an  end.  The  mention  of  the  deep  gulf  (Luke  16,  26),  and  the 
closed  door  (Matt.  25,  10)  justifies  the  fear  of  the  contrary  ;  and 
even  if  Matt.  12,  32  be  interpreted  as  teaching  the  forgiveness  of 
some  sins  in  the  future  world — which  cannot  be  done  without 
reasonable  doubt — the  terrible  judgment  upon  at  least  one  sin 
remains,  in  any  case,  in  its  full  force. 

11.  Thus  the  sinner  is  in  himself  irretrievably  lost  (Luke.  19, 
10),  and  yet  not  absolutely  past  recovery  (Matt.  19,  25,  26). 
The  lost  penny  may  be  found,  the  wandering  sheep  be  brought 
back,  but — never  through  his  own  strength.  The  need  of 
redemption,  so  absolutely  undeniable  in  itself,  must  be  under- 
stood and  felt  by  the  sinner  (Luke  18,  14).  The  self- righteous- 
ness which  denies  it,  renders  the  man  so  much  the  more  repro- 
bate, and  hypocrisy  is  just  the  sin  against  which  alone  the  meek 
and  gentle  Jesus  is  inexorable. 

Comp.  on  Demonology,  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  "Life  of  Jesus"  II, 
140  sqq.  and  the  literature  there  cited :  on  the  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost,  ib.  II.  330  sqq. :  on  the  Anthropology  and  Ha- 
martology  of  our'Lord  in  general,  KEUSS  I,  195  sqq.  SCHMID 
I,  230  sqq. 

Questions  for  Consideration. — The  traces  of  Demonology  in 
Judaism.— Are  the  declarations  of  Jesus  concerning  the  king- 
dom and  the  power  of  darkness  the  result  of  accommodation,  of 
personal  error,  or  of  practical  knowledge  of  a  mysterious  real- 
ity ? — In  what  respect  does  the  Anthropology  of  Jesus  stand 
above  that  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  ? — How  far  may  his  esti- 
mation of  childhood  be  reconciled  with  the  idea  of  universal 
depravity? — What  does  Luke  15,  11-16  teach  concerning  the 
history  of  the  progress  of  sin  ? — Do  the  teachings  of  our  Lord  in 
the  Synoptical  Gospels  contain  the  least  trace  of  the  doctrine  of 
tiTroxax&ffTaats  ? — May  his  declaration  in  regard  to  the  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost  be  illustrated  from  other  passages  of  the  Scrip- 
tures ? 


62  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 


Salvation. 

The  salvation  springing  from  the  Kingdom  of  God,  although 
a  preparation  was  made  for  it  in  the  Old  Testament  dispensa- 
tion, to  which  our  Lord  stands  in  a  very  distinct  relation,  is  yet, 
through  him  alone  revealed  and  manifested.  It  consists  in  the 
personal  enjoyment  of  temporal  and  spiritual  blessings,  begun 
here  and  made  complete  in  the  future.  The  appearance  on 
earth,  the  life  and  labors,  the  atoning  death,  and  the  heavenly 
glory  of  Jesus  Christ  have  together  the  distinct  aim  to  offer  this 
salvation  to  all. 

1.  In  order  to  bring  the  reign  of  sin  and  misery  to  an  end 
forever,  Christ  has  appeared  with  the  Gospel  of  the  kingdom 
(Mark  1,  15).     But  although  he  announces  the  gospel  as  some- 
thing relatively  new,  he  is  far  from  presenting  even  this  new- 
ness as  entirely  independent.     We  have  already  had  occasion  to 
observe  the  contrary  (§  9,  7)  ;  and  here  is  the  place  to  consider 
the  relation  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  especially  to  Mosaism 
and  Prophetism,  of  our  Lord's  word  and  work  as  described  by 
himself. 

2.  The  Sacred  Scriptures  of  Israel  constitute,  in  his  view,  a 
collection  of  priceless  value.     He  constantly  and  exclusively 
appeals  to  the  declarations  of  the  Law,  the  Prophets  and  the 
Psalms,  and  gives  unequivocal  testimony  to  the  entire  Canon 
of  the  Old  Testament  (Matt.  23,  35  ;  Luke  24,  44).    "  It  is  writ- 
ten," is  the  rule  for  his  own  faith  and  conduct,  and  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  thrice  furnishes  him  with  a  weapon  against  the 
kingdom  of  darkness  (Matt.  4,  4-10).     He  also  teaches  that  the 
same  rule  is  binding  upon  his  contemporaries  (Luke  10,  26  ;  16, 
29-31  ;  Matt.  19,  8),  and  regards  it  as  not  even  to  be  thought 
of  that  the  Scripture  should  not  be  fulfilled  (Matt.  26,  54  ;  Luke 
22,  37).     The  Scriptures  have  also  a  teleological  significance 
(Luke  16,  16),  and  his  own  relation  to  them  is  expressed  in  the 
sentence  (Matt  5,  17)  "  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill." 


Salvation.  63 

3.  It  is  not  difficult  to  define  the  relation  in  which  our  Lord 
places  himself  to  the  prophetic  portion  of  the  Scriptures.     The 
entire  Old  Dispensation  he  regards  as  one  connected  preparation 
for  his  coming  (Matt.  21,  33-37),  but  in  the  words  of  the  proph- 
ets, especially,  he  finds  direct  predictions  of  his  person  and 
work  (Luke  4,  18.  19 ;  18,  31),  and  also  concerning  his  forerun- 
ner (Mark  9,  13),  and  in  passages  even,  where  we,  without  his 
explanation,  should  not  have  recognized  them  (e.  g.  Matt.  21, 
42).     He  plainly  interprets  the  prophetic  word  from  the  typico- 
symbolical  point  of  view,  and  desires  his  disciples  to  do  the 
same  (Luke  24,  25-27). 

4.  It  is  not  so  easy  to  define  the  position  which  our  Lord 
takes  in  relation  to  the  Law.     It  is  obvious  that  he  feels  himself 
inwardly  elevated  above  its  letter,  and  of  his  own  free  choice 
becomes  siibject  to  its  various  prescriptions  (Matt.  12,  6 ;  17, 
27).     That  necessity  also  may  break  the  law,  he  by  no  means 
overlooks  (Mark  2,  21-28).     Least  of  all  does  he  pay  deference 
to  human  tradition,  which  he  emphatically  distinguishes  from 
the  requirements  of  the  divine  law  (Matt.  15,  9).     These  he 
regards  as  binding  upon  himself  and  his  disciples;   still  he 
never  shows  that  he  attaches  less  importance  to  the  ceremonial 
than  to  the  moral  part  of  the  law  of  Moses.     (See  Luke  2,  41- 
43 ;  Mark  1,  41 ;  Matt.  26,  18).     In  no  case  can  it  be  shown 
that  he  allowed  himself  or  his  disciples  to  transgress  the  origi- 
nal prescriptions  of  the  law.     In  the  great  antitheses  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  (Matt.  5,  21-44)  he  opposes  indeed  the 
later  additions  to  the  Law,  but  never  its  original  requirements. 
He  emphatically  reproves  the  neglect  of  the  "  weightier  mat- 
ters "  of  the  law,  but  enjoins  also  the  observance  of  the  least 
(Matt.  23,  23).     From  those  among  his  contemporaries  who  in- 
wardly stand  upon  the  foundation  of  law,  he  constantly  requires . 
obedience  to  it  (Matt.  19,  18 ;  comp.  also  the  addition  in  Luke 
6,  5,  found  in  Cod.  D. :  see  Tischendorf ),  commands  the  multi- 
tude to  do  whatever  the  Scribes  bid  them  observe  (Matt.  23,  3), 
and  expects  that  his  disciples,  for  the  immediate  future  at  least, 
will  regard  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  (Matt.  24,  20).     Thus  he 
confirms  towards  the  end  of  his  public  life,  what  he  said  at  the 
beginning  (Matt.  5,  18)  of  the  permanent  authority  of  the  Law. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  clear  that  Jesus  regards  the  perma- 


64  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

nent  union  of  the  old  and  new  as  partly  impossible  and  partly 
pernicious  (Matt.  9,  15-17).  He  foresaw  and  predicted  a  time, 
in  which  the  old  form  would  be  destroyed  by  the  new  spirit 
infused  by  Himself.  In  his  assured  knowledge  that  city  and 
temple  were  to  fall,  he  could  not  have  expected  that,  after  that 
period,  the  Israelitish  worship  would  be  maintained,  much  less 
that  the  letter  of  the  Mosaic  law  would  maintain  an  abiding 
authority.  Yet  with  profound  wisdom  he  left  the  letter  un- 
touched, so  long  as  the  spirit,  living  in  Himself,  had  not  yet 
passed  into  his  disciples,  and  in  the  full  consciousness  that  a 
new  covenant  was  to  be  instituted  by  Him  (Matt.  26,  28),  he 
anticipates  the  highest  blessing  of  the  ancient  covenant  prom- 
ise (Jer.  31,  31-34).  Thus  were  blended,  in  a  higher  unity, 
in  the  consciousness  of  our  Lord,  the  fulfillment  of  the  Law, 
and  the  abrogation  of  its  letter.  Both  the  Law  and  Prophets 
were  merely  to  announce  and  prepare  the  salvation  which  he 
came  to  present. 

5.  The  nature  of  the  salvation,  assured  in  Him  to  the  sub- 
jects of  this  kingdom  is  by  no  means  exclusively  spiritual. 
The  meek  are  to  inherit  the  earth,  the  faithful  servant  to  have 
extended  authority  and  reward  (Matt.  5,  6;  19,  28;  25,  21). 
But  this  outward  salvation  comes  only  when  the  inward  is 
gained,  the  obtaining  of  which  is  our  principal  work  on  earth. 
Both  negatively  and  positively,  it  is  exhibited  by  our  Lord 
in  the  most  glorious  colors.  They  who  inherit  the  kingdom 
of  God,  are  delivered  thereby  from  all  the  miseries  which 
flow  from  being  lost ;  they  are  forever  kept  (Luke  19,  10) ; 
they  have  the  forgiveness  of  sins  (Luke  7,  50;  18,  14),  and 
in  consequence  a  rest  sought  elsewhere  in  vain  (Matt  11,  28). 
The  enjoyment  is  depicted  according  to  the  different  condi- 
tions of  those  for  whom  it  is  provided.  To  the  blind  it  is 
sight,  to  the  prisoner  freedom,  to  mourners  comfort,  to  the 
hungry,  plenty,  to  the  oppressed  a  rich  reward  for  whatever 
is  suffered  here  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  Still,  it  is  not  to  be 
denied  that  the  central  point  of  the  salvation  made  known 
by  Christ  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels  is  not  the  present,  but 
the  future  life.  His  eye,  like  that  of  his  contemporaries,  is 
fastened  principally  upon  eternal  life,  and  that  life  is  con- 
ceived of  as  a  life  beyond  the  grave.  It  will  be  given,  at 


^/•^ 

*%^  V 


Salvation.  65 

the  coming  of  the  Lord  in  his  glory,  to  those  who  observe 
the  prescribed  conditions,  and  will  bring  the  misery  of  earth 
forever  to  an  end;  while  the  redeemed  under  the  New  Cov- 
enant will  be  made  sharers  in  the  glory  already  possessed  by 
the  patriarchs  of  the  Old  Dispensation  (Matt.  8,  11.  12). 

6.  The  question  remains,  what  our  Lord,  according  to  his 
own  teachings,  has  done,  is  doing,  and   will   do  to  give  this 
priceless  salvation  to  men.     His   coming   into  a  world  which 
is  not  his  home,  has  for  its   end   to   receive  a  kingdom    and 
to  seek  the  lost  (Luke  19,  10.  12).     For   this   he  went  forth 
(Mark  1,  38),  especially  after  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel  (Matt.  15,  24),  and  the  whole  of  his  public  ministry  is 
consecrated  to  the  same  great  aim.     As  a  sower  he  passes  over 
the  field  (Matt.  13,  3),  and  styles  himself  the  Teacher  of  his  dis- 
ciples (Matt.  23,  8 ;  26,  55).     Even  his  miracles  were  wrought 
to  show  that  the  kingdom  was  near  (Matt.  12,  28),  and  to  make 
Himself  known  as  the  Christ  (Matt.  11,  4.  5).     Yet  He  did  not 
approve  of  the  seeking  for  miracles,  regarded  false  miracles  as 
possible,  and  forbade  the  premature  report  of  those  which  He 
performed  (Matt.  8,  4 ;  16,  1-4 ;  24,  24).     On  the  other  hand, 
He  recalls  his  own  miracles  to  the  recollection  of  his  disciples 
(Mark  8,  19-21),  and  declares  the  rejection  of  a  message  sup- 
ported  by   such   evidence   absolutely  inexcusable   (Matt   11, 
20-24) — a  proof  that  the  working  of  miracles,  in  his  estima- 
tion, was  not  such  a  subordinate  part  of  his  earthly  work  as 
unbelief  has  since  maintained. 

7.  It  is,  however,  his  suffering  and  death  that  he  brings  into 
special  and  direct  relation  with  the  communication  of  salvation. 
It  will  not  be  denied  on  the  ground  of  purely  historical  criti- 
cism that  our  Lord  foretold  this  suffering  and  death.     It  is  true 
that,  according  to  the  unanimous  accounts  of  the  Synoptical 
writers,  there  was  a  period  in  his  life  (Matt.  16,  21-23),  in 
which  these  references  became  more  distinct  and  prominent; 
but  even  before  this,  there  were  not  wanting  figurative,  but 
nevertheless  explicit,  intimations  (Matt.   9,   15;    16,  24.   25). 
They  became  constantly  more  clear,  the  nearer  the  earthly  life 
of  Jesus  approached  its  close  (Luke  12,  49 ;   13,  33 ;   comp. 
Matt.  17,  22.  23 ;   20,  18.  19),   and  issued  finally  in  the  dis- 
tinct announcement  of  the  time  and  mode  of  his  death  (Matt. 

5 


66  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

26,  2),  united  somewhat  early  (Matt.  16,  21)  with  that  of  his 
resurrection.  That  the  disciples  absolutely  failed  to  compre- 
hend this  (Mark  9,  9.  10)  renders  their  subsequent  forgetfulness 
of  it  more  intelligible.  At  the  same  time,  this  statement  in 
Mark  shows  that  the  prediction  itself  was  not  one  subsequently 
fabricated  ex  eventu. 

The  point  of  view  from  which  our  Lord  regards  this  suffer- 
ing and  death  is,  from  beginning  to  end,  the  same.  It  belongs 
to  the  things  of  God  (Matt.  16,  23) ;  he  must  be  put  to  death, 
in  order  that  the  Scripture  may  be  fulfilled  (Luke  22,  37). 
There  is  no  more  reason  for  thinking  here  of  a  mere  moral 
necessity  (HOFSTEDE  DE  GROOT)  than  for  supposing  from  the 
parable  of  the  ungrateful  husbandmen  (Matt.  21,  37)  that  God 
really  expected  that  they  would  reverence  his  Son  (VAN 
OOKDT).  The  end,  for  which  this  death  was  so  absolutely  ne- 
cessary, is,  in  more  than  one  way,  expressly  stated.  If  he 
came  to  serve  (Matt.  20,  28 ;  Mark  9,  45),  this  service  reaches 
its  culmination  in  the  voluntary  giving  of  his  soul  as  a  ransom 
for  many.  Not  here  and  there  one,  but  many,  are  thereby  re- 
deemed from  the  ruin  which  otherwise  had  befallen  them.  His 
blood  is  shed  for  many  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  (Matt.  26,  28), 
that  is,  in  order  that  their  sins  might  be  forgiven.  Although 
Matthew  alone  records  these  words,  there  is  the  less  reason  to 
regard  this  idea  as  unhistorical  (BAUR),  because,  even  aside 
from  this  passage,  the  idea  it  contains  is  in  substance  already 
expressed  in  the  announcement  of  the  blood  of  the  new  covenant 
(comp.  Ex.  24,  8).  That  our  Lord  regarded  his  death  as  a  sin- 
offering  appears  also  from  Luke  22,  37  compared  with  the  gene- 
ral import  of  the  53d  chapter  of  Isaiah,  which  here  distinctly 
stands  before  his  mind  :  comp.  also  Luke  23,  31.  The  question 
repeatedly  put  in  connection  with  these  passages  (BAUR),  "  wheth- 
er more  was  not  subsequently  put  into  them  than  they  originally 
contained,"  may  be  expected  from  a  certain  well  known  school, 
but  then  it  raises  the  suspicion  of  a  foregone  conclusion.  It  is 
certain  at  least  that  nothing  can  be  found  in  the  words  of  Jesus 
which  conflicts  with  his  own  declarations  respecting  the  end  and 
result  of  his  death.  That  in  Matt  9,  2  ;  18,  35  the  forgiveness  of 
sin  is  spoken  of  without  reference  to  his  death,  is  perfectly  com- 
prehensible at  that  period  and  in  that  connection.  It  may  also 


Salvation.  67 

be  admitted  that  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  contains  a 
pure  and  glorious  truth,  and  yet  not  the  full  truth  in  respect  to 
the  atonement,  which  could  not  be  fully  revealed  until  at  a  later 
period.  In  a  word  we  must  not  forget  that  Jesus  for  wise 
reasons  spoke  but  little,  comparatively,  in  regard  to  his  death. 

8.  It  is,  however,  far  from  true  that  the  ministry  of  our 
Lord  in  preparing  salvation  for  the  world,  terminated,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  declarations,  with  his  death.  His  heavenly 
glory,  on  the  contrary,  stands  directly  connected  with  his 
humiliation  and  with  the  execution  of  his  plan  (Luke  24,  26). 
Hence  he  calls  himself  king  (Matt  25,  40)  and  does  not  cease 
after  his  departure  to  stand  in  a  personal  relation  to  his  follow- 
ers (Matt  18,  20 ;  28,  20).  That  by  this  something  more  than 
simply  moral  power  must  be  understood,  appears  from  his  de- 
claration that  it  is  given  to  him  also  in  heaven  (Matt.  28,  IS). 
This  power  he  exhibits  in  a  constantly  increasing  measure,  and 
this  manifestation  is  styled  his  glorious  coming.  It  began 
during  his  life  on  earth  (Matt.  16,  23),  was  continued  previous 
to  the  death  of  some  of  the  Apostles,  before  their  eyes  and 
those  of  their  enemies,  especially  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem (Matt  16,  28;  26.  63.  64),  and  will  be  seen  in  the  fullest 
sense  at  the  consummation  of  the  ages,  the  signs  of  which  will 
agree  with  those  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (Matt,  chap. 
24-25).  It  is  like  the  stone  thrown  into  the  water  which  de- 
scribes ever  widening  circles,  the  last  of  which  loses  itself  in 
boundless  space. 

On  the  relation  of  our  Lord  to  the  Old  Testament  in  general, 
and  the  Mosaic  Law  in  particular,  comp.  LECHLER,  "  The  Old 
Test,  in  the  discourses  of  Jesus"  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1854. — MEYER, 
"  On  the  relation  of  Jesus  and  his  disciples  to  the  Mosaic  law" — 
VAN  KONKEL,  Specimen  J.  C.  doctrinam  exhibens  de  V.  T.  libris. 
Traj.  1860. — VAN  HASSELT,  "The  relation  of  Jesus  to  the 
Mosaic  law,  according  to  the  Synoptical  Gospels."  Gron.  1863. 
(The  result,  however,  to  which  the  last  named  writer  comes, 
that  "Jesus  criticised  the  law  upon  the  higher  principle  that 
whatever  was  cognizable  to  Him  in  his  conscience  was  the  will 
of  God,"  rests  evidently  upon  an  incorrect  antithesis  between 
the  conscience  of  the  individual  as  the  higher,  and  the 
(revealed !)  will  of  God  as  a  lower  authority).  Comp.  KAUF- 


68  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

FER,  de  bibl.  £wrjc  uhbviov  notione,  Dresd.  1838;  EIET,  "The  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  concerning  eternal  life,  according  to  the  four  Gospels.1'1 
Utrecht,  1864.  On  our  Lord's  predictions  of  his  sufferings,  and  the 
reasons  why  he  spoke  comparatively  little  concerning  his  death, 
VINKE,  in  the  publications  of  the  Society  at  the  Hague,  1835 ; 
HASEET,  "  On  the  predictions  of  Jesus  concerning  his  death  and 
resurrection"  Berlin,  1839;  EITZSCHL,  "The  teachings  of  the  New 
Testament  concerning  the  saving  power  of  the  death  of  Jesus"  in 
the  Jahrb.  fur  deutsche  Theol.  1863.  On  the  whole  subject  of 
this  section,  see  VAN  OOSTEEZEE,  "Life  of  Jesus"  EEUSS,  and 

SCHMID. 

Questions  for  consideration. — How  far  does  our  Lord  place 
himself  in  the  same  line  with  the  men  of  God  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  how  far  above  them  ? — Is  there  any  purely  critical 
ground  for  the  supposition  that  his  predictions  concerning  his 
death  and  resurrection  were  modified  ex  eventu  ? — May  it  be 
assumed  that  he  said  more  concerning  it  than  the  Ofospels 
relate  ? — Is  it  possible  for  all  his  declarations  concerning  his 
"coming,"  to  be  understood  in  the  same  sense? 

§15. 

The  Way  of  Salvation. 

Although  all  are  called  to  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  sal- 
vation it  offers,  the  sinner  actually  obtains  salvation  only  in  the 
exercise  of  repentance,  faith,  and  by  a  renewing  of  the  heart, 
which  manifests  itself  in  the  whole  direction  of  the  life.  All 
who  comply  with  this  condition  constitute  together  a  spiritual 
community,  which,  in  consequence  of  its  nature  and  especially 
its  character  and  tendency,  stands  high  above  every  other  and 
is  destined  to  spread  and  to  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

1.  Since  the  kingdom  of  God  was  originally  destined  for  all 
(§  10,  2),  all,  according  to  the  teaching  of  our  Lord,  must  be 
invited  to  it.  His  own  personal  ministry,  indeed,  was  confined 
to  Israel  (Matt.  15,  24),  and  his  gospel  was  first  brought  to  that 


The  Way  of  Salvation.  69 

nation  (Luke  24,  47),  yet  He  early  foresaw,  willed  and  fur- 
thered the  falling  of  the  wall  of  separation.  The  universal 
character  of  Christianity  was  not  first  taught  by  Paul  (the 
Tubingen  School)  but  by  Jesus  himself,  as  we  see  Him  descri- 
bed in  the  Synoptical  Gospels.  The  more  Israel  turned  away, 
the  more  emphatically  does  He  urge  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles 
(Luke  14,  16-24).  Many  are  already  called  and  all  must  be ; 
all  bear  this  name  (the  called)  to  whom  the  invitation  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  comes,  whether  they  accept  it  or  not.  Those 
who  accept  it,  incalculably  fewer  in  number,  bear  the  name  of 
"  the  chosen  "  (Matt.  22,  14).  God  himself  has  brought  them 
to  the  enjoyment  of  this  privilege  (Matt.  11,  25.  26 ;  16,  17), 
the  loss  of  which,  on  the  other  hand,  after  the  exhibition  of  his 
love  in  seeking  them,  can  be  ascribed  only  to  themselves,  and  is 
their  own  fault. 

2.  Such  a  chosen  heir  of  salvation,  however,  a  man  does  not 
become,   except  by  experiencing  a  great  change,   which  our 
Lord  represents  as  necessary  for  all,  his  disciples  not  excepted 
(Matt.  18,  3).     Like  his  forerunner,  John  the  Baptist  (Luke  3, 
8),  he  regards  external  descent  from  Abraham  as  not  sufficient 
to  constitute  a  citizen  of  the  kingdom  of  God.     He  requires  a 
genuine  change  of  mind  (fisT&roia)  attended  by  external  turning 
(InunqoyJi)  to  the  way  of  life  (Luke  17,   4).     But  while  the 
preaching  of  John  urged  principally  an  externally  moral  life 
(Luke  3,  10-14),  Jesus  directed  attention  chiefly  to  the  inner 
state.     The  first  step  in  conversion  He  points  out  with  the  most 
striking  clearness,  in  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son,  who  begins 
.to  come  to  himself  (Luke  15, 17).    In  opposition  to  the  Pharisaic 
principle — from  without,  inward — that  of  Jesus  is,  from  within, 
outward  (Luke  11,  39-41).     With  Him,  the  state  of  the  heart 
is  not  simply  much,  but  everything  (Matt.  12,  33-35).     It  is 
only  as  this  is  secured,  that  in  his  estimation,   external  restitu- 
tion, in  a  case  of  wrong-doing,  has  any  significance   (Luke  19, 
8.  9).     So  much  importance  does  he  attach  to  conversion,  that 
he  requires  it  to  be  always  preached  in  immediate  connection 
with  the  promise  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  (Luke  24,  47),  because 
while  it  is  never  the  procuring  or  meritorious  cause  of  the  lat- 
ter, it  is  nevertheless  its  indispensable  condition. 

3.  With   equal   emphasis   our  Lord   requires  faith 


70  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

which  is  most  intimately  connected  with  conversion.  He  means 
by  it,  not  merely  an  intellectual  assent,  but  a  trusting  accept- 
ance of  what  upon  good  grounds  must  be  regarded  as  the  truth. 
He  speaks  of  believing  John  the  Baptist  (ajJiw,  Matt.  21,  32), 
but  of  faith  in  Himself  (els  ipt,  Matt.  18,  6 ;  Mark  9,  42),  which 
expresses  a  more  intimate  relation.  The  object  of  the  faith  He 
requires  is  in  general  the  Gospel  (Mark  1,  15),  or  more  compre- 
hensively all  which  the  prophets  have  spoken  (Luke  24,  25), 
and  in  the  highest  sense,  God  (Mark  11,  22).  But,  regarding 
Himself  as  the  centre  of  the  gospel,  he  requires  faith  not  merely 
in  his  word,  but  also  in  his  own  person  (Matt.  18,  6).  On  this 
faith  he  makes  not  only  the  exhibition  of  his  miraculous 
power,  (Matt.  9,  29)  but  citizenship  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  to 
depend  (Mark  16,  16).  It  is,  in  his  estimation,  the  supreme 
quality  in  the  moral  life  of  man ;  the  only  thing,  of  which  we 
read  that  its  strength  or  its  absence  led  our  Lord  to  marvel 
(Mark  6,  5 ;  Luke  7,  10).  No  wonder  that  the  greatest  prom- 
ises are  made  to  it  here  (Matt.  17,  20),  and  that  He  desires  above 
all  to  find  it  on  the  earth  at  his  future  coming  (Luke  18,  8). 

4.  As  this  faith  constitutes  a  coming  to  Christ  (Matt.  11,  28), 
so  it  manifests  itself  in  the  following  him.     This  following  is 
impossible,  however,  without  absolute  self-denial,  and  if  this 
self-denial  is  to  mean  anything,  it  must  be  voluntary  and  daily, 
and  be  habitually  renewed  and  prosecuted  (Luke  9,  23).     This 
requirement,  in  its  form  peculiar  and  original,  aims  at  nothing- 
less  than  the  slaying  of  all  within  us  that  hinders  our  entire 
consecration  to  the  work  of  the  Lord,  even  though  it  involve 
the  most  painful  sacrifices  (Mark  9,  43-50 ;  Luke  14,  26.  27). 
Hence  our  Lord  requires,  before  a  man  becomes  his  disciple, 
thoughtful   and  serious  consideration,  (Luke  14,    28-31),  but 
after  he  has  once  taken  the  decisive  step,  He  demands  a  conse- 
cration and  steadfast  loyalty,  which  shall  be  ready  to  dare  and 
endure  anything  in  order  to  win  the  great  reward  (Matt.  19,  29. 
30 ;  24,  13). 

5.  Whoever  thus  comes  first  to,  and  then  after  Christ,  hence- 
forth follows  an  entirely  different  way  from  that  in  which  he 
formerly  went.     In  general,  the  duty  of  working  is  laid  upon 
the  subjects  of  the  kingdom  of  (rod :  they  are  called  into  the 
service  of  the  Lord,  not  for  rest,  but  to  work  and  win  (Matt.  7, 


The  Way  of  Salvation.  71 

21;  21,  28;  25,  14).  In  this  labor  their  watchword  must  be 
conscientious  fidelity,  united  with  constant  watchfulness  for  the 
coming  of  the  Lord,  the  time  of  which  is  unknown  (Luke  12, 
35-46).  In  close  connection  with  this  they  are  strictly  charged 
to  be  persevering  in  prayer  (Matt.  26,  41 ;  Luke  18,  1-8)  and 
to  cultivate  a  holy  carefulness,  which  a  proper  freedom  from 
anxiety,  also,  (Matt.  6,  25-34)  renders  possible  and  easy.  But 
the  disposition  of  the  children  of  the  kingdom  must  especially 
appear  in  their  relation  to  each  other  and  to  all  men.  While 
they  are  to  be  at  peace  with  each  other,  as  far  as  possible  (Mark 
9,  50)  and  even  to  seek  their  true  greatness  in  the  helpfulness  of 
ministering  love  (Matt.  20,  25-28),  they  are  called  to  exhibit 
love  to  all  (Luke  10,  25-37)  and  even  to  enemies  (Matt.  5,  44) 
and  to  show  that  in  this  respect  they  are  governed  by  another 
spirit  than  that  of  the  world  or  even  the  Old  Testament  (Luke 
9,  55).  It  is  only  thus  that  they  approach  the  moral  perfection, 
which  is  to  be  the  end  for  which  they  strive  (Matt  5,  48). 

6.  It  is  impossible  that  they  who  are  governed  by  such  a  dis- 
position, should  permanently  remain  isolated.  They  constitute 
a  spiritual  community,  of  which  it  cannot  for  a  moment  be 
doubted  that  in  spirit  it  is  wholly  of  the  Lord.  It  is  true 
that  He  does  not  expressly  say  that  he  will  have  a  church, 
in  the  sense  which  has  since  been  given  to  that  word.  The 
word  itself  faxtyaia)  occurs  but  twice  in  the  Synoptical  Gos- 
pels (Matt.  16,  18 ;  18,  17).  In  the  latter  passage  it  seems 
merely  to  signify  in  general  the  union  of  his  disciples  (con- 
vocata  societas,  Heb.  qahal,  also  used  of  the  synagogue)  and 
without  questioning  the  historical  basis  of  the  former  (REUSS), 
it  yet  is  evident  that  our  Lord  had  here  an  ideal  in  his  mind, 
which  was  to  be  realized  only  in  the  future.  But  while  thus 
wisely  leaving  to  the  Spirit,  which  should  afterwards  guide 
his  disciples,  to  mould  the  form  under  which  they  and  all 
believers  were  to  be  united,  the  mutual  fellowship  of  his  sub- 
jects manifestly  lies  upon  the  heart  of  their  King  as  a  matter 
of  great  importance.  It  was  certainly  his  purpose  to  prepare 
the  highest  salvation  not  merely  for  a  greater  or  less  num- 
ber, but  for  all  his  disciples.  This  is  manifest  from  the  parable 
of  the  feast  with  many  guests,  the  vineyard  with  different 
laborers,  the  household  with  various  servants.  Accordingly  he 


72  Biblical  Theology  of  the  Xew  Testament. 

does  not  train  his  disciples  simply  as  individuals,  but  unites 
them  together  in  a  small  community.  He  prescribes  also  the 
immutable  principles  on  which  they  must  ever  be  united.  No 
fasts  are  to  be  made  obligatory  upon  them  (Matt.  9,  14.  15), 
oaths  must  be  superfluous  (Matt.  5,  33-37),  united  prayer  is  an 
important  duty  (Acts  18,  18-20),  and  the  mutual  oversight  of 
love  in  behalf  of  those  in  error,  a  part  of  their  calling  (vs.  15- 
17).  Self-exaltation  is  steadily  forbidden,  together  with  strife 
for  preeminence  (Matt.  23,  8-12),  and  an  untiring  spirit  of  for- 
giveness (Matt.  18,  23-35)  is  required  to  be  united  with  the 
utmost  carefulness  in  judging  of  others  (Matt.  7,  1-6). 

7.  With  a  view  to  the  constant  union  of  his  disciples,  our 
'Lord  established  two  sacred  ordinances,   of  great  significance 
for  his  kingdom.     Through  the  ever  renewed  announcement  of 
his  death,  in  the  Lord's  supper,  he  seeks  to  bind  his  disciples  to 
Himself  and  to  each  other.     Through  baptism  he  designs  to 
separate  all  believers  from  the  Jewish  and  Heathen  world,  and 
unite  them  in  the  confession   of  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  (Matt.   28,   19;' Mark  16,   16).     If  it  is  true,   as 
Strauss  maintains,  that  the  most  recent  criticism  of  the  gospels 
is  "  pretty  well  agreed  "  that  the  formula  of  baptism  did  not 
exist  till  the  latest  edition  of  the  first  Gospel,  then  the  said  crit- 
icism must  make  haste  to  review  such  an  inconsiderate  conclu- 
sion.    There  is  no  more  reason  to  question  the  historical  char- 
acter of  the  formula  of  baptism,  than  that  of  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, and  no  one,  not  influenced  by  dogmatic  prepossessions, 
would  ever  think  of  doing  it. 

8.  The  Church,  thus  set  apart  and  united  by  the  will  of  the 
Lord,  is  to  spread  and  to  continue  to  the   end.     We  have 
already  seen  the  fundamental  law  of  this  increasing  growth 
(§  10,  2) ;  it  can  here  be  only  observed,  that  it  is  to  take  place, 
in  accordance  with  the  design  of  Jesus,  through  exclusively 
spiritual  agencies,  and  especially  through  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel  (Matt.  24,  14).     The  triumph  of  his  kingdom  and  the 
perpetuity  of  his  Church,  notwithstanding  the  most  violent 
opposition  (Matt.  10,  34-36  ;  Luke  12,  49-51)  our  Lord  announ- 
ces not  as  merely  possible  or  probable,  but  as  absolutely  cer- 
tain.    The  ground  of  this  certainty  lies  in  the  solid  foundation 
on  which  the  rising  divine  edifice  rests  (Matt.  16,  18),  and  the 


The  Consummation.  73 

pledge  given  in  the  abiding  nearness  of  the  Saviour  (Matt.  28, 
20),  who  has  departed  to  remain,  but  also  —  to  come  again. 

Comp.  EEUSS  I  192,  SCHMID  1.  299  ff;  MATTHAEI,  Jesu 
Christi  doctrina  de  jurejurando,  Hal.  1847.  On  faith,  KOSTLIN, 
"Faith,  its  nature,  ground,  and  object,"  Gotha,  1859.  On  the 
Christian  Church,  KiST,  in  the  publication  of  the  Teyler  Theo- 
logical Society,  Deel  xxx.  On  the  Synoptical  Account  of  the 
institution  of  the  Lord's  supper,  DOEDES,  "  The  doctrine  of  the 
Lards  supper."  Utrecht,  1847. 

Questions  for  consideration.  —  Is  the  idea  of  x^a^  as  used  by 
Christ  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  exactly  the  same  as  when 
used  by  Paul  ?  —  What  may  be  learned  from  Luke  15,  17  sqq. 
in  respect  to  the  proper  nature  of  fie-i&voia?  —  Difference  and 
higher  unity  of  the  object  of  faith.  —  The  peculiar  exhibition  of 
self-denial  in  Luke  9,  23.  —  The  relation  of  the  subjects  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  to  each  other  and  to  civil  society.  —  How  far 
may  Christ,  according  to  his  own  declarations,  be  regarded  as 
the  founder  of  the  Christian  Church  ?  —  Comparison  of  baptism, 
as  instituted  by  our  Lord,  with  the  baptism  of  John.  —  Form 
and  signification  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  supper. 


The  Consummation. 

The  salvation  of  the  subjects  of  the  kingdom  of  God  does 
not  cease  at  their  death,  but  reaches  its  entire  completion  only 
at  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  by  which  the  glory  of  the  King  will 
be  revealed,  and  the  tried  fidelity  of  his  subjects  be  crowned 
with  the  full  reward  of  grace.  That  future  will  be  ushered  in 
by  impressive  tokens,  accompanied  with  amazing  changes 
external  and  moral,  and  followed  by  the  decisive  separation 
between  the  good  and  the  bad,  which  will  constitute  an  irrevo- 
cable close  of  the  present  dispensation. 

1.  Certain  as  it  is  that  the  sincere  subjects  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  are  here  indescribably  blessed  (Matt.  5,  3-10  ;  Luke  10, 


74  Biblical  Theology  of  tthe  New  Testament 

23.  24),  it  yet  cannot  be  denied  that  this  blessedness  is  contin- 
ually disturbed  or  obstructed.  The  entrance  costs  effort,  the 
pursuit  demands  sacrifices  (Matt.  13,  24;  14,  26).  Hence  we 
look  beyond  the  grave,  and  a  very  essential  need  would  be 
unsupplied,  if  our  Lord  had  left  the  question,  concerning  the 
consummation  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  unanswered. 

2.  Although  man  as  such  is  immortal  (Matt.  10,  28),  yet 
beyond  this,  the  pious  are  raised  after  death  to  a  state  of  the 
highest  blessedness.  If,  in  a  single  instance,  our  Lord  compares 
death  to  sleep  (Luke  8,  52),  this  is  no  proof  that  he  conceives 
of  a  sleep  of  the  soul,  properly  so  called.  On  the  contrary  he 
represents  the  Old  Testament  saints  as  living  unto  God  in  the 
fullest  sense  of  the  word  (Luke  20,  38 ;  comp.  Matt.  8,  11),  and 
teaches  not  only  that  personal  existence,  but  also  self-conscious- 
ness and  memory  survive  the  death  of  the  body  (Luke  16,  19- 
31).  The  state  of  the  departed  («<%,  Heb.  sheol)  is  according 
to  Him  no  abode  of  unbroken  silence  and  absolutely  the  same 
for  all  (Job  3,  17-19),  but  the  scene  of  a  terrible  contrast, 
which  takes  place  immediately  after  death.  While  the  wicked 
are  cast  into  hell  (Gehenna),  the  pious  are  at  once  carried  to 
Abraham's  bosom,  comforted  and  made  blessed.  The  same 
local  conception  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  mention  of  ever- 
lasting habitations  (Luke  16,  9),  into  which  those  who  have 
gone  before,  receive  their  friends  who  have  been  faithful  in 
well-doing,  and  of  the  Paradise  (Luke  23,  43),  promised  to  the 
thief  on  the  cross.  Both  must  indicate  the  state  of  the  departed 
and  be  regarded  as  the  description  of  a  blessedness,  commencing 
immediately  after  death,  but  not  made  complete  until  the  com- 
ing of  the  Lord. 

The  idea  of  the  coming  of  the  Lord  (nuyovaia)  is  so  unequiv- 
ocally and  emphatically  expressed  in  his  discourses  recorded  in 
the  Synoptical  Gospels,  that  the  attempt  to  strike  out  all  his 
declarations  concerning  it,  as  spurious,  by  a  single  stroke  of 
the  pen  (CoLANi)  is  not  merely  to  the  last  degree  arbitrary, 
but  must  be  called  well  nigh  desperate.  The  universal  ex- 
pectation of  the  Apostolic  age  on  this  point  is  perfectly  incom- 
prehensible, if  there  was  not  the  least  ground  for  it  in  his  own 
declarations.  It  is  equally  incredible  that  the  eschatological 
discourses  of  our  Lord  were  considerably  modified  and  em- 


The  Consummation.  75 

bellished  in  consequence  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem ;  for 
it  was  only  before  that  event  that  the  downfall  of  the  Jewish 
State  and  the  end  of  the  world  could  have  been  so  closely 
connected  as  is  there  done.  And  it  must  be  regarded  as 
extremely  venturesome  to  maintain  that  Jesus,  so  far  as  he 
actually  uttered  these  discourses,  was  simply  mistaken  in  re- 
gard to  future  events.  The  end  has  not  yet  come;  and  we 
must  seriously  question  whether  our  Lord,  if  he  had  seen  in 
the  expectations  of  his  disciples  only  the  fruit  of  national 
prejudice,  would  have  spoken  at  such  length  and  so  emphatic- 
ally on  this  point.  Exegetical  investigation  must  decide  how 
far  and  why  he  brings  the  end  of  the  world  into  connection 
with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  So  much,  however,  is  cer- 
tain,— that  he  promises,  in  the  most  emphatic  manner,  that, 
after  his  coming  in  a  humble  form  on  earth,  he  will  again 
appear  for  the  revelation  of  his  glory,  which  will  bring  the 
present  order  of  things  to  an  end. 

3.  This  coming  will  be  unexpected  (Luke  12,  39.  40),  but 
not  without  preparation.     It   will   be   announced  by   tokens 
partly  of  a  terrifying  and  partly  of  a  joyful  nature.     To  the 
latter  belongs  the  universal  proclamation  of  the  gospel ;  to  the 
former  the  appearing  of  false  Messiahs  and  the  delusions  con- 
nected therewith,  war  and  pestilence,  famine  and  earthquakes, 
oppression,  discord  and  moral  decay  (Matt.   24,  4-14) — in  a 
word,  the  birth-pangs  of  the  Messianic  age,  which  the  contem- 
poraries of  our  Lord  also  looked  for. 

4.  Next  follows  the  appearing  of  the  Son  of  Man  himself, 
announced  by  his  sign  in  heaven  (Matt.  24,  30)  and  accom- 
panied by  terrrible  phenomena  in  the  natural  and  moral  world 
(v.  29).     The  powers  of  heaven  will  be  moved,  the  form  of 
this  world  be  changed.     We  are  no  more  authorized  to  under- 
stand the  words  of  our  Lord,  respecting  this  great  event,  in  a 
literal  sense,  than  to  deny  their  truth  in  the  name  of  the  results 
of  a  so-called  modern  philosophy.     The  form  of  representation 
evidently  approximates  that  of  the  old  prophets :  but  the  great 
thought  is  that  the  natural  world  and  the  race  of  man  are  to 
share  in  the  revelation  of  the  glorious  future. 

5.  Along  with  this  great  and  decisive  close,  and  not  before, 
is  the  resurrection  of  the  dead   to  be   expected,  concerning 


76  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

which  our  Lord  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels  speaks  but  little  and 
only  in  passing ;  yet  He  represents  it  as  a  collective  event,  and 
one  which  decides  the  everlasting  destiny  of  all.  His  conver- 
sation with  the  Sadducees  (Matt  22,  23-33)  has  been  under- 
stood, indeed,  as  promising  an  individual  resurrection  immedi- 
ately after  death.  But  as  this,  in  view  of  the  ideas  of  that  age, 
is  less  probable  in  itself,  so  it  appears  from  a  careful  examina- 
tion of  Luke  20,  33-38  (comp.  Mark  12,  23)  that  He  represents 
the  resurrection  as  belonging  to  a  period  yet  in  the  future, 
which  will  be  coincident  with  the  end  of  the  world ;  and  still 
further  He  speaks  of  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  as  an 
event  to  occur  at  one  and  the  same  time.  Accordingly  his 
declarations  in  regard  to  the  condition  of  the  saved,  that  they 
are  like  the  angels  (Matt.  22,  30),  must  be  understood  as  dis- 
tinctly referring  to  their  complete  blessedness  after  the  consum- 
mation of  all  things.  The  wish  to  find  an  idea  expressed  by 
our  Lord  which  may  be  more  acceptable  to  ourselves,  must  not 
be  allowed  to  lead  us  away  from  the  original  meaning  of  his 
words  or  to  pervert  the  obvious  import  of  his  prophetic  teach- 
ing. 

6.  At  the  same  time  with  the  (second)  coming  of  the  Lord 
the  Messianic  judgment  is  to  be  expected,  concerning  which  He 
speaks  much  more,  in  the   Synoptical  Gospels,  than  of  the 
resurrection.     He  never  represents  himself  as  being  only  a  wit- 
ness of  the  spectacle  and  still  less  as  belonging  to  those  sum- 
moned to  appear,  but  always  as  the  future  Judge,  from  whose 
decision,  once  pronounced,  no  appeal  to  a  higher  tribunal  can 
be  imagined.     As  such  He  will  appear  in  heavenly  majesty, 
summon  all  the  generations  of  men,  pronounce  sentence  ac- 
cording  to   the   measure   of  love   springing  from   faith,    and 
adjudge  to  each  a  weal  or  woe  which  will  never  end  (Matt.  25, 
31^6).     The  angels  will  be  employed  in  preparing  and  exe- 
cuting his   sentence,   especially  upon  his  enemies  (Matt.   13, 
39-42).     When  this  is  done,  the  Eegeneration,  i.  e.,  the  entire 
renewal  of  the  natural  and  spiritual  creation,  will  have  been 
accomplished  (Matt.  19,  28). 

7.  Here  is  the  place  to  speak  in  general  of  the  reward  to  be 
given  by  our  Lord  to  his  faithful  servants.     The  effort  has 
been  made  by  turns,  either  to  banish  every  idea  of  reward  from 


The  Consummation.  77 

his  words,  or  else  to  forge  from  his  declarations  a  weapon 
against  the  purity  of  his  ethical  teachings,  but  in  both  cases 
with  no  solid  foundation.  Without  justifying  or  exciting  the 
greed  for  reward,  our  Lord  yet  promises  to  those  who  have 
labored  or  made  sacrifices  for  Him  (Matt.  19,  29,-20,  16)  a  real 
reward,  that  is,  a  proportionate  recompense.  This  reward  will 
be  regulated  in  accordance  with  righteous  principles,  though 
not  such  as  prevail  among  men,  and  the  prospect  of  it  may 
serve  for  encouragement  in  the  labor  of  love  (Matt  10,  40-42). 
But  the  reward  which  crowns  the  work  is  not  at  all  of  merit. 
On  the  contrary  our  Lord,  while  teaching  that  no  good  thing  is 
done  in  vain,  declares  with  equal  emphasis  that  the  reward  is 
wholly  of  grace;  in  other  words,  that  the  laborer  is  never 
entitled  to  demand  any  special  reward.  Luke  17,  7-10  is  on 
this  point  stronger  than  any  other  passage.  In  a  single  word, 
the  doctrine  of  reward  is  here  announced,  not  from  a  legal,  but 
from  an  evangelical  point  of  view ;  the  question  is  answered, 
not  so  much  what  is  really  deserved  as  what  is  graciously  pre- 
sented. The  impelling  principle  of  obedience  may  be  simply 
love  and  duty,  but  the  reward  is  held  up  to  view  in  order  to 
sustain  His  disciples  under  the  many  things  which  oppress 
them  (Matt.  5,  11.  12). 

8.  After  what  has  been  said,  it  is  not  difficult  to  show 
in  what,  according  to  the  unvarying  teaching  of  our  Lord  in 
the  Synoptical  Gospels,  the  future  reward  is  properly  to  con- 
sist. First,  the  faithful  servant  will  receive  honor  which  will 
compensate  him  for  all  earthy  shame  and  strife.  He  will 
be  served  by  the  Lord  himself,  crowned  with  the  highest  praise 
and  exalted  to  the  rank  for  which  he  is  capacitated.  Next,  he 
will  enjoy  a  blessedness  which  is  depicted  under  the  most  im- 
pressive images,  and  will  be  full  and  immortal.  Finally,  he  will 
be  called  to  a  work  which  will  give  him  new  opportunities  to 
become  an  ornament  and  blessing  to  the  kingdom  of  God, 
then  made  triumphant  and  complete  (Luke  12,  36.  37;  19, 
15-19 ;  comp.  Matt.  25,  14-30).  Special  glory  and  exaltation 
is  promised  to  those  who,  in  this  kingdom,  have  stood  foremost 
in  contest ;  but  even  the  slightest  labor  of  love  will  not  fail  of 
a  proportionate  reward  (Matt  10,  42 ;  19,  28).  And  all  this 
unmingled  blessedness  will  be  enjoyed,  in  union  with  each 


78  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

other,  forever.  Whoever  correctly  throws  himself  into  the  fu- 
ture, and  thus  with  spiritual  tact  distinguishes  between  figure 
and  fact,  will  think  twice  before  he  characterizes  the  eschatol- 
ogy  of  Christ  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  as  "grossly  material " 
(KEUSS). 

9.  While  thus,  on  the  one  hand,  the  children  of  the  kingdom 
attain  to  perfect  blessedness,  the  decision  in  regard  to  the  chil- 
dren of  darkness,  on  the  other  hand,  has  come ;  as  such  they 
are  manifested,  separated  and  meet  a  righteous  retribution.     It 
may  be  true  that  the  word,  eternal,  in  itself,  does  not  convey 
the  idea  of  endlessness;  yet  the  great  antithesis,  with  which 
our  Lord  closes  his  teachings  (Matt.  25,  46),  leaves  no  room  for 
the  supposition  that  at  the  end  the  ripe  tares  will  be  garnered 
with  the  good  grain,  and  thus  the  completed  kingdom  of  Grod 
will  embrace  all  without  distinction.     The  fearful  word,  like- 
wise, concerning  Judas  (Matt.  26,  24)  leads  to  an  opposite  con- 
clusion, as  does  the  terrible  threatening  (Matt.  18,  6)  to  those 
who  willfully  give  offence.     To  attempt  to  support  the  contrary 
from  the  parable  of  the  leaven  (Matt.  13,  33)  is  wholly  to  lose 
sight  of  the  difference  between  the  region  of  natural  necessity 
and  that  of  moral  freedom.     And  to  regard  such  a  representa- 
tion as  hard,  is  to  forget  that  according  to  the  tenor  of  other 
declarations  (see,  for  example,  Luke  12,   47.  48)  the  law   of 
proportionateness  will  be  steadily  observed  in  the  retributions 
of  the  future  world. 

10.  It  does  not  admit  of  denial,  that  our  Lord  constantly 
and  even  in  his  last  eschatoldgical  discour-es  represents  his 
future  coming  as  very  near  at  hand.     This  was  the  natural 
consequence  of  the  prophetic  mode  of  view,  in  which  the  dif- 
ference of  time  and  space  is  thrown  into  the  background.     It 
was  also  practically  necessary,  if  the  exhortation  to  watchful- 
ness and  labor  was  to  receive  its  highest  impressiveness  from 
the  relative  nearness  of  a  decisive  future  to  come  when  not 
expected.     Yet  slight  hints  are  by  no  means  wanting  that  to 
Him  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  final  judgment  were 
far  from  identical,  and  that  the  latter  might  be  delayed  longer 
than  impatient  zeal  expected.     Notice  the  expressions :  "  imme- 
diately after  the  tribulation  of  those  days,"  Matt.  24,  29,  "after 
a  long  time,"  Matt.  25,  19,  the  assumption  in  Luke  12,  45,  and 


TJie  Consummation.  79 

the  intimation  in  Luke  21,  24.  It  is  quite  a  question  whether 
the  receptivity  of  the  Apostles  on  this  point  admitted  of  a 
more  developed  explanation.  In  any  case  the  exact  fixing  of 
the  time  was  not,  in  the  view  of  our  Lord,  the  main  thing,  so 
much  as  the  lively  exhibition  of  the  fact  of  his  approaching 
manifestation.  The  repeated  references  to  this  fact  stood  di- 
rectly connected  with  the  consolation  and  sanctification  of  his 
disciples,  at  which  from  first  to  last  he  principally  aimed.  It 
was  important,  also,  that  they  should  remember  the  direction 
which,  according  to  an  ancient  tradition,  He  is  said  to  have 
given  to  them,  and  which  is  applicable  to  us  in  the  investigation 
of  these  and  of  all  his  words,  ube  ye  skilled  judges  of  coin." 

On  the  discourses  of  our  Lord  in  regard  to  his  coming,  comp. 
the  extensive  literature  cited  in  HASE'S  Life  of  Jesus,  5  Aufl., 
§  101 ;  VAN  OOSTEKZEE,  "  Life  of  Jesus"  III,  104  sqq.  On  the 
doctrine  of  reward,  a  treatise  by  WEISS  in  the  Deutsche  Zeit- 
schrift  for  1853. 

Questions  for  Consideration. — For  what  reason  did  our  Lord 
so  closely  connect  the  description  of  the  last  times  with  that  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem? — In  what  respect  does  this  de- 
scription agree  with  the  eschatology  of  Judaism  in  that  age, 
and  in  what  does  it  differ? — The  difficulties  which  meet  us, 
both  in  the  literal  and  the  allegorical  explanation  of  these  pre- 
dictions.— Is  there  ground  for  affirming  that,  if  Matt.  24  and  25 
are  to  be  regarded  as  genuine,  Jesus  was  mistaken  ? — Can  traces 
be  found,  in  the  words  of  Christ  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  of 
the  idea  of  a  two-fold  resurrection? — Criticism  of  the  objec- 
tions made  against  the  explanation  of  Matt.  25,  31-40  as  a 
description  of  the  last  judgment. — The  doctrine  of  the  thou- 
sand years'  reign  before  the  forum  of  Christ  in  the  Synoptical 
Gospels. 


80  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

CHAPTEE  II 

THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN. 

§17. 
Introduction. 

The  words  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel  present  a  character 
so  entirely  peculiar  that  a  separate  treatment,  especially  in  our 
age,  is  not  only  desirable,  but  necessary.  It  is  important  in 
conducting  it  to  distinguish,  so  far  as  possible,  between  the 
declarations  of  the  Johannean  Christ  and  those  of  the  Christian 
John.  In  examining  the  former,  the  theology  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament must  proceed  from  the  leading  thought  by  which  the 
discourses  of  our  Lord  in  this  Gospel  are  governed. 

1.  We  cannot  enter  upon  the  examination  of  the  teachings 
of  our  Lord  in  the  fourth  Gospel  without  a  word  of  introduc- 
tion, which  shall  justify,  at  the  outset,  the  separate  position 
given  to  this  investigation,  by  pointing  out  the  peculiar  char- 
acter of  these  immortal  discourses.  In  advance  of  even  a 
general  view  of  the  difference  between  the  fourth  Gospel  and 
the  three  others,  it  is  evident  at  once,  that  here,  in  listening  to 
the  words  of  our  Lord,  we  are  moving  in  a  new  circle  of  ideas. 
Not  only  is  the  theatre  on  which  we  usually  meet  Him  differ- 
ent, but  the  form  of  his  discourses  and  the  impression  made  by 
them  and  even  the  matter  itself,  when  compared  with  the  Syn- 
optical Gospels,  present  important  points  of  difference.  There, 
stands  in  the  foreground  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  here,  the  King 
himself;  there,  the  human,  here,  the  divine  side  of  the  person 
of  the  Saviour ;  there,  the  blessedness  of  redemption  beyond, 
here,  on  this  side  of  the  grave.  On  this  account  the  examina- 
tion of  both  at  the  same  time  is  attended  with  peculiar  diffi- 
culty. No  exhibition  of  the  harmony  of  the  three  first  Gospels 
with  the  fourth  is  of  any  value,  which  does  not  proceed  from 
the  unhesitating  recognition  of  the  difference  between  the  two. 


The  Gospel  of  John.  81 

2.  This  separation,  desirable  in  itself,  is  in  the  present  state 
of  the  Johannean  question  doubly  necessary.     Never  were  the 
genuineness  and  credibility  of  the  fourth  Gospel  so  violently 
assailed  as  now.     The  Biblical   Theology  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment cannot  take  part  directly  in  an  investigation  which  be- 
longs to  the  department  of  Introduction  and  Criticism.     But 
collaterally  it  may  throw  some  weight  into  the  scale  by  inquir- 
ing whether  the  teachings  of  our  Lord  recorded  in  the  Gospel 
of  John  are  or  are  not  in  harmony  with  his  other  declarations. 
If  at  this  point,  to  say  nothing  of  any  other,   the  accounts 
prove  to  be  in   irreconcilable  contradiction,  nothing  remains 
but  to  decide  between  them.     If  on  the  contrary,  the  difference 
admits  of  being  perfectly  explained  and  reconciled,  then  it 
follows  that  from  this  armory   at   least   no   weapons   can   be 
brought  against  the  fourth  Gospel. 

3.  An  important  difficulty  still  remains,  even  when  the  genu- 
ineness  of    the   fourth   Gospel   and   in   general  its   historical 
trust- worthiness  are  admitted.     The  question  arises  whether  we 
are  here  listening  to  Jesus  as  he  actually  spoke,  or  as  John, 
with  frequently  great  freedom  of  narration,  represents  him  as 
speaking.     The  latter  is  maintained  by  many,  and  it  cannot  be 
denied,  in  carefully  comparing  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles  of 
John,  that  we  often  find  in  the  Baptist,  the  Lord  himself  and 
the  Apostles  the  same  ideas  expressed  in  the  same,  or  at  least 
similar,  forms.     Still,  care  must  be  taken  not  to  forge  a  weapon 
against  the  credibility  of  the  Gospel  of  John  from  what,  rightly 
viewed,  constitutes  a  proof  of  its  genuineness.     If  John  was 
really  the  bosom  friend  of  Jesus,  or  animated  above  others 
with  the  spirit  of  the  Master,  it  is  conceivable  that  he  should 
gradually  have  entirely  assimilated  the  language  he  used  to 
that  of  the  Lord,  and  on  the  contrary  absolutely  incredible  that 
he  should  have  placed  words  in  his  mouth  which  he  well  knew 
were  never  spoken.     Even  if  we  admit,  therefore,  that  he  re- 
corded with  apostolic  freedom  under  divine  guidance  the  words 
of  THE  WORD  (which  besides  were  spoken  in  another  language), 
they  may  be  regarded  all  the  more  readily  as  the  words  of 
Jesus,  because  it  appears  from  various  examples  that  between 
the  style  of  John  and  that  of  Jesus  as  found  in  John  there  is 
a  discernable,  though  not  a  great,  difference.     Thus,  John  in 

6 


82  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

the  prologue  of  his  Gospel  speaks  of  the  Logos,  but  the  Johan- 
nean  Christ  never  gives  this  name  to  himself.  Our  Lord  des- 
ignates himself  also  as  the  Son  of  Man,  but  the  Apostle  never 
employs  this  title  in  his  testimony  concerning  his  Master. 
Jesus  calls  his  disciples  brethren  and  friends ;  John  avoids  it. 
Jesus  speaks  of  his  kingdom  and  the  kingdom  of  God ;  John, 
when  speaking  himself,  does  not  mention  it.  The  Holy  Ghost 
is  described  by  Jesus  as  the  Paraclete  (John  14,  16.  17) ;  by 
John  (2,  2)  the  glorified  Christ  himself.  Jesus  speaks  of  God 
as  a  Spirit  (4,  24) ;  John  only  declares  him  to  be  light  and  love 
(1,  5 ;  4,  16).  Such  differences,  which  might  be  easily  multi- 
plied, could  not  be  explained,  if  John  had  without  scruple 
placed  his  own  thoughts  in  the  mouth  of  the  Master.  If  it 
appear  doubtful  here  and  there  whether  he  himself  speaks  or 
is  reporting  the  discourses  of  the  Lord  (e.  g.  3,  16-21 ;  comp. 
3,  31-36)  the  dividing  line  is  still  for  the  most  part  sufficiently 
visible ;  and  even  if  sometimes  the  form  of  the  report  be  partly 
ascribed  to  him,  the  fidelity  of  the  main  contents  may  be  suc- 
cessfully vindicated.  On  these  grounds  we  regard  it  as  possible 
and  necessary  to  distinguish  properly  in  the  Gospel  of  John 
between  the  Johannean  theology  and  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
and  here  to  speak  exclusively  of  the  latter. 

4.  Here,  as  in  the  survey  of  the  Synoptical  discourses,  it  is 
of  prime  importance  to  fix  upon  the  main  thought,  by  which 
the  discourses  of  our  Lord  in  the  Gospel  of  John  are  governed, 
and  allow  this  to  shed  light  upon  the  treatment  of  the  particu- 
lar parts.  Care,  however,  must  be  taken  not  to  confound  the 
main  idea  of  the  Gospel  itself  with  the  main  idea  of  the  dis- 
courses of  Christ  preserved  for  us  in  this  Gospel.  The  science 
of  Introduction  investigates  the  first  by  an  analytic  process; 
the  other  is  derived  by  Biblical  Theology  from  the  total  im- 
pression made  by  the  words  of  our  Lord  here  recorded,  in  dis- 
tinction from  others.  And  then  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that 
these  words  in  the  fullest  sense  exhibit  a  Christo-centric  charac- 
ter; that  is,  that  His  own  person  and  work  constitute  the  great 
centre  around  which  all  revolves.  To  a  certain  degree  this 
was  also  to  be  observed  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  but  what 
was  there  only  an  element  of  the  Gospel  of  the  kingdom  has 
here  obviously  become  the  principal  thing.  We  must  conse- 


The  Gospel  of  John.  83 

quently  begin  with  the  inquiry,  not  what  our  Lord  declared 
concerning  his  kingdom  in  general,  concerning  the  Father,  or 
concerning  man,  but  what  he  taught  concerning  Himself  in  all 
these  and  similar  relations,  before  we  are  in  a  condition  to 
answer  the  question,  how  far  these  declarations  can  or  cannot 
be  reconciled  with  those  brought  before  us  in  the  preceding 
chapter. 

In  regard  to  the  Johannean  question  in  general,  besides 
the  Introductions  to  the  New  Testament,  especially  those  of 
GUEKICKE  and  BLEEK  [the  latter  translated  into  English],  and 
the  excellent  Commentary  of  GODET,  1864,  1865,  compare 
"VAN  OOSTEKZEE,  "  The  Gospel  of  John"  Utrecht,  1867,  and 
the  literature  there  cited ;  to  which  may  be  added  the  impor- 
tant work  of  RiGGENBACH,  "  The  Testimonies  for  the  Gospel  of 
John"  Basle,  1866  [also  FISHER,  On  the  Supernatural  Origin  of 
Christianity,  2d  ed.]  On  the  genuineness  and  credibility  of 
the  Johannean  report  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus,  more  particu- 
larly GODET,  "  Examination  of  the  principal  questions  raised  in 
our  day  concerning  the  fourth  Gospel"  Paris,  1865.  On  the  dif- 
ference between  the  Johannean  language  and  theology  and  that 
of  our  Lord,  the  article  of  P.  HOFSTEDE  DE  GEOOT  in  Waarh.  in 
Liefde,  1837,  and  G.  L.  PAREAU,  in  the  same  periodical,  1847. 
The  neglect  of  this  difference  has  exerted  an  exceedingly  un- 
favorable influence  upon  the  treatment  of  the  theology  of  the 
Johannean  Christ  by  most  of  the  more  recent  theologians. 
Comp.  farther  upon  that  theology  in  general,  EEUSS,  SCHMID 
and  others ;  also  what  G.  W.  STEMLER  has  written  upon  it  in 
Godgel  Bijdr.,  1866.  We  willingly  concede  to  the  last  named 
writer,  that  the  teachings  of  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel  prop- 
erly contain,  as  a  whole,  no  theology,  if  this  word  be  taken  in 
the  sense  of  a  strict  theological  system.  This,  however,  does 
not  prevent  our  endeavoring  to  bring  the  extended  discourses 
of  our  Lord,  so  far  as  possible,  into  one  connected  whole. 

Questions  for  Consideration. — When  was  a  beginning  made  in 
investigating  the  teachings  of  Jesus  in  John,  separately  from 
those  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels? — May  the  distinguishing  be- 
tween the  doctrine  of  the  Johannean  Christ  and  of  the  Christian 
John  be  perfectly  justified  ? — How  far  and  on  what  grounds  may 


84  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

we  speak  of  a  literal  report  of  the  discourses  of  our  Lord  by  the 
Apostle  John  ?  —  The  observations  of  the  writer  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  compared  with  his  report  of  the  words  of  the  Lord.  — 
Can  we  here  properly  speak  of  a  theology  ? 


The  Son  of  God  in  the  Flesh, 

The  consciousness  of  himself  expressed  by  our  Lord  in  the 
fourth  Gospel  is  that  of  God's  own  Son,  appearing  as  true  and 
holy  man  among  irfen,  in  order  to  become  the  Messiah  of  Israel 
and  the  Saviour  of  the  world  ;  but  who,  even  during  his  abode 
on  earth,  does  not  cease  to  stand  personally  in  a  relation  to 
heaven  entirely  peculiar  to  himself. 

1.  For  the  right  knowledge  and  judgment  of  the  theology  of 
the  Johannean  Christ,  it  is  first  of  all  important  to  inquire 
what  consciousness  of  himself  is  properly  expressed  by  the  /, 
who  affirms  such  unheard  of  things  concerning  himself.     This 
question,  under  the  influence  of  previous  dogmatic  ideas  or 
wishes,  has  received  various  answers.     Whoever  examines  can- 
didly and  attentively,  and  compares  what  our  Lord  says  of 
Himself  in  the  third  person  and  in  the  first,  cannot  long  remain 
in  -uncertainty.     As  the  fourth  Gospel  begins  with  the  divine 
nature  of  our  Lord,  while  the  first  and  third  commence  with 
his  human  birth,   so  it  is  with  the  words  and  discourses  of 
Jesus  in  this  Gospel.     In  the  Synoptical  writings  we  ascend  to 
the  revelation  of  his  divine  dignity  ;  in  John  we  set  out  with 
the  assumption  of  this  truth.     The  /  who  here  speaks  is  neither 
on  the  one  hand  merely  human,  nor  on  the  other  is  the  Messi- 
anic consciousness  of  the  Lord  that  of  the  Son  of  God  con- 
ceived of  aside  from  all  relations  to  mankind  :  it  is  uniformly 
the  expression  of  the  feeling  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  as 
such. 

2.  That  our  Lord,  especially  in  the  fourth  Gospel,   styles 
himself  very  often  the  Son,  the  Son  of  God,  once  even  the 
only  begotten  Son  (v.  16),  is  admitted  by  all.     Of  what  nature 
is  this  relation  which  he  has  to  the  Father,  according  to  his 


The  Son  of  God  in  the  Flesh.  85 

own  declarations,  will  be  presently  investigated.  Here  it  is 
enough  to  observe  in  passing,  that  in  any  case  a  superhuman 
relation,  a  personality  supermundane  in  its  origin,  is  indicated 
by  the  term.  This  is  evident  from  the  fact,  not  merely  that 
the  Lord  in  the  Gospel  of  John  applies  this  name  to  no  one 
but  Himself,  but  also  that  He  thereby  claims  for  himself  a 
personal  existence  before  his  coming  into  the  world,  such  as 
can  be  ascribed  to  no  one  else.  See  among  other  passages 
chap.  6,  62;  8,  58;  16,  28;  17,  5.  24.  The  arbitrariness  which 
undertakes  to  expunge  several  of  these  passages  as  interpolated 
is  quite  as  unjustifiable  as  the  violence  shown  to  their  mean- 
ing in  explaining  them  as  teaching  only  an  ideal  (impersonal) 
pre-existence.  If  men  will  not  believe  our  Lord's  declarations 
in  regard  to  his  own  consciousness,  let  them  at  least  not  muti- 
late them  by  making  Him  say  something  different  from  what, 
according  to  impartial  exegetical  and  critical  investigation,  He 
actually  did  say.  Moreover,  the  same  consciousness  lies  at  the 
basis  of  those  words,  in  which  He  declares  that  he  was  born, 
came,  or  was  sent  for  a  definite  purpose  (chap.  10,  10 ;  18,  37). 
It  may  be  also  seriously  doubted  whether  our  Lord  would  ever 
have  allowed  himself  to  have  been  greeted  by  one  of  his  dis- 
ciples as  his  "Lord  and  his  God"  (20,  28)  if  He  had  not  had 
the  abiding  consciousness  of  superhuman  origin  and  dignity. 

3.  It  is,  however,  far  from  true,  that  He  who  knew  so 
much  more  than  man,  was,  in  his  own  view,  man  only  in 
appearance.  On  the  contrary,  He  calls  himself  "  a  man  who 
speaks  the  truth  "  (8,  40),  and  repeatedly  employs  the  term  Son 
of  Man  (1,  52 ;  3,  14 ;  5,  27).  He  speaks  of  his  coming  into 
the  world  (18,  37) ;  shows  the  most  tender  care  for  his  mother 
(19,  26) ;  makes  express  mention  of  his  flesh  and  blood  (6,  54)  ; 
asks  a  question  for  information  (11,  34) ;  and  declares  that  his 
soul  («WTJ)  is  troubled.  On  the  cross  He  complains  of  thirst 
(19,  28),  and  after  his  resurrection  constrains  Thomas  to  lay  his 
hand  in  his  side  and  note  the  marks  of  the  nails  (20,  27).  The 
exegesis  which,  after  such  strong  testimony,  styles  the  Johan- 
nean  Christ  docetic  (i.  e.  man  only  in  appearance)  because  He 
also  declares  higher  things  of  himself,  assumes,  what  must  first 
be  proved,  that  it  is  impossible  in  itself  to  be  more  than  man 
and  at  the  same  time  truly  man. 


86  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

4.  It  is  equally  unquestionable  that  our  Lord  regarded  him- 
self, according  to  this  Gospel,  as  perfectly  pure  and  sinless.     He 
views  and  represents  himself,  indeed,  as  subject  to  temptation 
(6,  15 ;  12,  27),  but  the  prince  of  this  world  has  nothing  in 
Him  (14,  30).     Negatively,  this  consciousness  is  manifest  from 
the  question,  "  which  of  you  convinceth  me  of  sin  ?"  (8,  46), 
which,  if  not  the  issue  of  pride  or  self-deception,  must  be  the 
expression  of  the  objective  truth;  and  positively,  from  so  many 
expressions  in  which  He,  who  seeks  not  his  own  glory  (7,  18), 
bears  testimony  to  a  morally  normal  relation  to  the  Father, 
never  for  one  moment  disturbed  or  obscured  (4,  34  ;  8,  29  ;  11, 
9 ;  15,  9 ;  17,  4).     Consequently  he  does  not  merely  seek  and 
find  his  place  among  the  "  artists  of  the  ideal  of  humanity  " 
(STRAUSS),  but  places  himself  without  arrogance  and  yet  une- 
quivocally above  all  who  lived  before  Him  or  who  will  live 
after  Him  (3,  6). 

5.  As  true  and  spotless  man,  our  Lord  expressly  affirms  that 
he  has  appeared  on  earth  in  a  distinct  character  as  the  Messiah 
of  Israel  and  the  Saviour  of  a  sinful  world.     His  relation  to 
the  world  will  be  treated  of  presently.     In  regard  to  Israel,  it 
is  evident  that  Jesus  in  the  fourth  Gospel  early  represents  him- 
self as  the  Messiah,  and  as  such  accepts  homage  (see  1,  52 ; 
3,  14 ;  4,  26  and  other  passages),  and  even  makes  salvation 
dependent  upon  the  recognition  or  rejection  of  himself  as  such 
(8,  24).     Far  from  correcting  the  multitude,  when  they  under- 
stood the  term,  Son  of  Man,  as  meaning  the  Messiah  (12,  34. 
35),  he  obviously  sanctions  it;  and  although  denying  before 
Pilate  that  his  kingdom  is  to  be  of  this  world,  does  not  deny 
that  He  may  be  called  a  King.     He  repeatedly  appeals  to  the 
testimony  of  the  Scriptures  concerning  Him  (13,  18 ;  15,  26), 
and,  as  the  one,  by  way  of  distinction,  Sent,  presents  himself 
on  the  last  evening  of  his  life  before  his  Father  as  spotless  (17, 
3.  4).     He  feels  and  reveals  himself,  consequently,  in  a  single 
word,  as  a  historical  person,  of  whom  Moses  wrote  (5,  46),  and 
who  temporarily  appears  upon  earth  for  the  fulfillment  of  a 
distinct  mission. 

6.  Yet,  although  as  man   He  dwells  in  person   on   earth, 
He   nevertheless   knows    himself   to   be    in    heaven   (3,    13). 
He  was  there  not  merely  before  his  birth ;   in  virtue  of  his 


The  Son  of  God  in  the  Flesh.  87, 

higher  nature  He  did,  and  does,  remain  there  after  it.  What 
he  speaks  He  has  seen  and  heard  Himself  in  the  most  inti- 
mate communion  with  the  Father  (8,  38 ;  12,  49.  50).  He  is 
not  only  conscious  of  possessing  a  pre-existent  life,  but  He 
represents  it  with  the  modification  rendered  necessary  by  his 
appearance  in  a  true  and  holy  human  nature.  Coming  forth 
from  the  Father,  he  returns  shortly  to  his  immediate  commun- 
ion with  Him  (16,  28) ;  yet  he  ceases  not,  even  during  this 
intermediate  period,  to  be  in  the  Father,  to  hear  and  to  learn  of 
Him,  and  by  Him  to  be  loved.  There  is,  thus,  in  his  con- 
sciousness, a  human  and  a  divine  factor,  originally  distinct, 
now  blended  together  in  an  inseparable  unity,  in  which  the 
activity  of  the  one  does  not  prevent  that  of  the  other.  The 
right  of  critical  inquiry  to  pronounce  such  a  consciousness  to  be 
a  priori  inconceivable  is  yet  to  be  proved.  That  nothing  like 
this  is  stated  in  the  fourth  Gospel  is,  to  the  Biblical  theologian, 
a  fixed  result  of  exegetical  investigation. 

Compare  in  general  YAN  OOSTERZEE,  "  ChristoLogy  /"  GESS, 
"  The  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,"  Basle,  1866,  S.  134  ff. ; 
WEIZS ACKER,  "  On  the  Johannean  testimony  of  Christ  himself" 
in  the  Jahrbiicher  fur  deutsche  TheoL,  1857,  1862  (an  exeget- 
ical argument  against  the  hypostatical  pre-existence) ;  ASTIE, 
"  Explanation  of  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  John"  Geneva,  1864  ; 
BEISCHLAG,  "  Christology  of  the  New  Testament"  Berlin,  1866, 
S.  65-108.  For  the  refutation  of  the  rationalistic  interpreta- 
tion of  the  utterances  of  our  Lord,  excellent  arguments  are 
found  in  SCHOLTEN,  "  The  Gospel  of  John"  Leyden,  1864.  In 
defence  of  the  true  humanity  of  our  Lord,  according  to  his 
own  testimony,  deserves  to  be  consulted  BONIFAS,  "  On  the 
humanity  of  Jesus  Christ  according  to  the  Gospel  of  John"  in  the 
Theological  Bulletin  of  the  Revue  Chretienne,  1864. 

Questions  for  Consideration. — Is  the  investigation  of  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  principal  person  in  the  fourth  Gospel  of  the 
first  importance? — The  different  phases  of  the  modern  criticism, 
reflected  in  its  treatment  of  John  6,  62;  8,  58;  17,  5;  and 
similar  passages. — What  peculiarity  appears  in  the  discourses 
of  our  Lord  in  the  fourth  Gospel  concerning  his  Messianic  dig- 
nity ? — Is  not  the  term,  Son  of  God,  here  and  there  used  by 


88  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

Jesus  in  its  pure  theocratic  sense  (John  10,  33-38)  ? — Is  John 
17,  3  to  be  regarded  as  containing  the  words  of  Jesus  himself? 

§19. 
The  Son  of  God  in  relation  to  the  Father. 

As  the  Son  of  God  our  Lord  represents  himself  to  have 
always  existed,  and  ever  to  remain  the  object  of  the  highest 
love  of  the  Father,  sharing  in  his  nature,  majesty  and  work, 
and  thus  to  have  in  the  Father  the  ground  and  the  aim  of  his 
life,  revealing  his  name  in  the  most  perfect  manner,  in  virtue 
of  which  He  is  entitled  to  a  homage  and  glory  such  as  cannot 
without  blasphemy  be  given  to  any  created  being. 

1.  Although  in  the  fourth  Grospel  the  appellation,  Son  of 
Grod,  is  used  in  a  few  instances  in  a  theocratic  sense  as  synony- 
mous with  the  word  Messiah  (1,  ^&0  and  elsewhere),  yet  our 
Lord  generally  uses  it  in  the  metaphysical  sense,  to  indicate 
the  relation  of  nature  and  being  which  exists  between  Him  and 
the  Father,  in  virtue  of  which  He,  in  distinction  from  every 
other,  is  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father  (3,  16).     The  utter- 
ances of  his  consciousness  of  himself  on  this  point  are  the 
more  important,  the  more  exalted  and  manifold  they  are.     It 
is  clear  at  the  outset,  that  they  indicate  a  relation  which  did 
not  first  begin  at  his  human  birth,  but  existed  "before  the 
foundation  of  the  world "  (17,  5.  24).     Undoubtedly,  in  this 
passage,  we  seek  in  vain  for  our  philosophical  idea  of  eternity. 
But  it  is  equally  certain  that  all  beginning  of  existence  in  and 
with  time  is  here  most  expressly  excluded  (comp.  Ps.  90,  2). 
The  being  of  the  Son  is  an  existence  from  eternity.     He  never 
mentions  a  period,  in  which  he  was  not,  but  was  to  be.     And 
what  He  ever  was  and  is,  He  remains,  even  during  his  life  on 
earth.     The  actual  existence  of  his  humanity  did  not  change 
the  essential  nature  of  his  Sonship. 

2.  As  Son  our  Lord  declares  himself  to  be  the  object  of  the 
highest  love  of  the  Father  (5,  20),  in  consequence  of  which  the 
latter,  as  in  an  eternal  present,  shows  Him  all  that  He  does. 


, 


,, 


»<  ' 


C4x 

A. 


The  Son  of  God  in  relation  to  the  Father.  89 

This  love  is  unchangeable,  like  Himself,  and  is  returned  by  the 
Son  with  the  most  intimate  affection  (14,  31 ;  17,  24).  Though 
thus  the  Father  is  and  remains  distinct  from  the  Son,  both  are 
essentially  one,  in  consequence  of  a  perfect  vital  communion ; 
here  is  a  unity  of  power,  which  again  is  not  conceivable  with- 
out unity  of  nature  and  essence  (10,  30).*  When  the  Jews,  on 
the  ground  of  expressions  like  this,  accuse  Him  of  making 
himself  equal  with  God  (5,  18),  he  does  not  deny  it,  but  pro- 
ceeds to  further  illustrations  (vv.  19-23),  by  which  He  explains 
but  does  not  weaken  his  previous  declarations. 

3.  In  consequence  of  this  unity  of  nature  and  majesty,  there 
is  also  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  a  unity  of  work.     Thi^ 
our  Lord  expressly  affirms,  in  vindicating  himself  against  the 
charge  of  breaking  the  Sabbath  (5,  17).  f     The  divine  work  of 
raising  the  dead  and  judging  is  distinctly  committed  by  the 
Father  to  the  Son  (vv.  21-29).     If  all  life  proceeds  from  the 
Father  (1  Sam.  2.  6 ;  Deut.  32,  39),  he  yet  awakes  and  presents 
it  through  the  Son,  both  in  the  natural  and  the  spiritual  sense 
of  the  word.     If  God  is  judge  (Ps.  75,  8),  he  yet,  without  the 
the  Son,  judges  no  one  and  nothing.     The  divine  attributes 
necessary  to  perform  such  a  work  are  claimed  by  our  Lord 
without  any  reservation.     He  has  power  over  all  flesh  (17,  2), 
and  exhibits  in  all  his  words  a  knowledge  far  above  all  human 
wisdom   (12,   50   and   elsewhere),   and  can   even  boldly  say, 
"Father,  I  will"  (17,  24). 

4.  Nevertheless,  the  will  of  the  Son  never  acts,  a  single  in- 
stant, without  that  of  the  Father.     On  the  contrary  He  has  in 
the  Father  the  ground  and  the  aim  of  his  life.     As  Son  he  has 
received  life  from  the  Father,  and  lives  through  Him  (5,  26  ; 
6,  57).     Because  he  is  Son,  it  would  be  impossible  to  do  any 
thing  of  Himself,  i.  e.,  out  of  communion  with  the  Father  (5, 
19),  but  because  He,  as  Son,  partakes  of  the  nature  of  the 
Father,  He  does,   also,  without  exception  what  He  sees  the 
Father  do.     As  Son  he  thus  declares  himself  dependent  upon 

*  Calvin  remarks  on  this  passage:  non  disputat  h.  I,  de  unitate  substantial;  but 
he  speaks  too  feebly,  when  he  adds :  sed  de  consensu  quern  cum  Patre  habtt.  That 
here  a  unity  of  power  must  be  conceived  of,  and  that  from  this  the  unity  of  es- 
sence results  as  a  necessary  conclusion,  we  have  already  observed  in  our  ''  Chris- 
tology,"  II,  76;  coinp.  "Life  of  Jesus,"  II,  681. 

f  Quae  conclusio  stare  non  potest,  nisi  aequalitas  personarum  Patris  et  Filii  stat- 
uatur,  ut  recte  Patres  adversus  Arianos  hoc  loco  docuerunt.  BEZA. 


90  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

the  Father,  calls  Him,  not  only  in  his  "human,  but  in  his  divine- 
human  nature,  greater  than 'Himself  (14,  28),  makes  the  seek- 
ing not  of  his  own,  but  of  his  Father's  glory  the  end  of  his 
striving  (7,  8),  while  in  return  He  expects  of  the  Father  that 
He  will  maintain  the  glory  of  the  Son  and  will  magnify  Him 
(17, 1). 

5.  On  earth  the  Son  glorifies  the  Father  by  revealing  his 
name  more  perfectly  than  was  ever  done  before.  For  this  He 
was  sanctified  (10,  35(),  i.  a,  set  apart  before  his  incarnation  by 
the  Father,  and  afterwards  sealed  by  Him  (6,  27),  i.  e.,  fur- 
nished with  the  unequivocal  evidence  of  his  approval.  In 
what  way  He  discharged  this  commission  will  appear  presently. 
This  is  the  place  to  consider  the  idea  of  God  which  pervades 
the  discourses  of  the  Johannean  Christ.  Pervades;  for  it  is 
manifest  at  once  that  to  the  question,  who  God  is,  our  Lord 
does  not  here  give  an  express  answer,  any  more  than  in  the 
Synoptical  Gospels.  The  name,  Father,  is  never  an  actual  de- 
scription of  the  Divine  essence,  but  of  the  relation  in  which 
God  stands  to  Him  and  through  Him  to  his  disciples.  And 
even  the  declaration,  "  God  is  a  Spirit"  (4,  24),  sublime  as  it  is, 
is  only  the  clear,  sententious  expression  of  a  truth,  which  under 
the  old  covenant  had  at  least  been  felt  and  declared  (Ex.  33, 
18-23).  Even  the  mention  of  God  as  (in  distinction  from 
idols)  the  only  true  God  (17,  3),  who  has  life  in  Himself  (5,  26), 
is  an  echo  of  what  was  there  taught,  and  the  attributes  of  the 
Divine  being,  e.  g.,  holiness,  eternity  and  righteousness,  wThich 
He  here  mentions  by  name  (17,  11 ;  24,  25),  are  also  else- 
where recognized.  Yet  He  declares  with  manifest  emphasis, 
when  speaking  of  the  completed  work  of  his  life  (17,  6),  that 
He  has  revealed  to  man  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  this  word 
gives  to  us  an  important  hint.  It  indicates  that  in  his  estima- 
tion this  name  (the  expression  of  the  proper  nature  of  God) 
was  hidden,  i.  e.,  not  absolutely  unknown,  but  still  not  known 
in  its  full  glory,  but  is  now  brought  to  light,  because  He  has 
appeared,  who  could  say  without  boasting:  "he  that  hath  seen 
me,  hath  seen  the  Father  "  (14,  9).  The  Son,  therefore,  reveals 
the  Father  not  so  much  through  the  words  which  he  speaks  in 
common  with  other  men  of  God,  as  rather  through  his  person, 
the  appearance  of  whom  in  the  flesh  is  the  answer  to  the  peti- 


'" 


,^(  <*••" 


k. 


-  - 


The  Son  of  God  in  relation  to  the  Father.  91 

tion:  "Show  us  the  Father."     As  Son  of  God  He  is  at  the 
same  time  the  highest  revelation  of  God. 

6.  As  the  highest  revelation  of  the  Father,  in  whose  nature, 
majesty  and  work  He  was  a  sharer  from  eternity,  the  Son  of 
God  lays  claim  to  a  homage  and  honor  which  can  be  given 
to  no  created  being  without  idolatry  (5,  23).     The  word  em- 
ployed is  undoubtedly  "to  honor"  (iipav),  and  not  "to  wor- 
ship "  (TTQCXJXVVBIV'),  but  the  former,  as  the  most  general  word,  in- 
cludes in  it  the  latter  as  expressing  the  more  special  homage, 
which  cannot  possibly  be  refused  to  the  Son,  if  He  be  truly  hon- 
ored as  (xa&dg)  the  Father  (comp.  John  20,  28).    For  this  reason, 
the  requirement  of  faith  in  Him  and  in  God  is  most  intimately 
united  (14,  1) ;  he  expressly  declares  that  it  is  impossible  to 
worship  the  Father  and  at  the  same  time  to  reject  the  Son 
(John  15,  23 ;  16,  3) ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  He  receives  with 
approbation  the  worship  offered  to  Him  by  the  man  born  blind 
(9,  38). 

7.  After  what  has  been  said,  there  is  no  doubt  in  regard  to 
the  question  whether  our  Lord  in  the  Gospel  of  John  denies 
every  essential  difference  between  himself  and  the  Godhead, 
with  the  exception  of  what  is  inseparable  from  the  personal  re- 
lation between  the  Father  and  the  Son.     He  does  not  speak  in 
figurative  language  on  this  point,  as  the  Evangelist  does  (1,  18) 
when  he  describes  the  Son  as  "  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father," 
but  literally  and  directly.     He  is  in  the  Father  and  the  Father 
in  Him.     All  that  are  the  Father's  are  therefore  his  (17,  10). 
He  is  from  above  (8,  2^),  an  expression  used  by  no  one  else, 
not  even  by  John  the  Baptist  of  himself  (3,  31) ;  He,  and  He 
alone,  hath  seen  the  Father  (6,  46).     He  has  come  down  from 
heaven  (6,  33.  38) ;  which  does  not  mean  that  He  is  of  heavenly 
nature  and  so  far  of  heavenly  origin,  but  the  reverse — of  heav- 
enly origin,  and  in  consequence,  of  heavenly  nature.    In  a  word, 
although  He  never  calls  himself  God,  He  will  not  be  regarded 
as  less  than  God,  and  the  only  difference  between  Him  and  the 
Being  on  whom  He  at  the  same  time  calls  in  prayer,  is  finally 
this :  that  the  latter  is  the  Father,  and  He  the  Son  of  his  love 
— distinct  from  the  Father,  but  yet  of  the  same  nature.     It  is 
in  vain  to  contradict  this  result  by  bringing  forward  single 
passages  which  apparently  give  a  weaker  idea  (e.  g.,  John  10, 


92  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

34-36;  17,  3.  21.  22).  Such  passages  must  not  be  isolated, 
but  brought  into  connection  with  his  other  declarations.  But 
even  taken  singly,  they  do  not  prove  what  is  sometimes  drawn 
from  them.  In  10,  34-36  in  calling  the  attention  of  his  hearers 
by  an  elevated  accommodation,  from  their  low  point  of  view,  to 
the  fact  that  even  theocratic  persons  of  eminence  sometimes 
receive  the  name  of  Grod,  He  does  not  affirm  that  He  has  styled 
himself  the  Son  of  Grod  only  in  this  figurative  sense,  but 
plainly  rises  from  the  lower  to  the  higher.  In  John  17,  3  the 
Father  is  called  the  only  true  Grod,  not  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  Son  from  all  right  to  this  title  (see  vv.  5  and  10),  but  in 
distinction  from  the  Son,  because  the  latter  here  speaks  in  the 
distinct  character  of  one  sent  by  the  Father.  In  declaring, 
however,  that  in  the  knowledge  of  Himself  is  eternal  life,  He 
must  have  felt  himself  more  than  a  mere  creature.  Least  of 
all,  finally,  does  it  follow  from  17,  21.  22  that  our  Lord  speaks 
of  a  merely  moral  and  not  of  a  metaphysical  unity  between 
Himself  and  the  Father.  The  whole  distinction  does  not  per- 
tain to  this  circle  of  ideas.  He  desires  only  that  his  disciples 
be  as  intimately  united  with  each  other  as  He  is  with  the 
Father.  This  relation  He  regards  as  the  model,  of  which  he 
would  have  theirs  to  be  a  copy.  "  Ilia  unitas  est  ex  naturd, 
haec  ex  gratia,  igitur  illi  haec  similis  est,  non  aequalis"  BENGEL. 
The  empirical  criticism  which  understands  these  declarations 
of  the  most  sublime  consciousness  of  Himself  by  Jesus  in  no 
weaker  sense  than  that  originally  intended,  but  for  this  very 
reason  regards  them  as  absolutely  unhistorical  and  incredible, 
stands  always,  in  substance,  on  the  low  platform  of  the  Jews 
(John  5,  18  ;  10,  33). 

Comp.  YAN  OOSTERZEE,  "  Ohristology"  II.  72  sqq. ;  EEUSS, 
II.  360;  SCHMID,  L  160  sqq. ;  FKOMMANN,  "  Theology  of  John," 
S.  386  ff. ;  an  article  by  VAN  HERWERDEN  in  Waarh.  in  L. 
1863. 

Questions  for  Consideration. — Did  the  Jews  misunderstand 
our  Lord,  or  did  they  not,  when  they  maintained  that  He  made 
himself  equal  to  God  ? — Does  the  Christology  of  Arianism  find 
any  support  in  the  declarations  of  the  Johannean  Christ  ? — Do 
these  expressions  favor  the  subordination  view  ? — What  is  the 
sense  of  John  8,  38  ?— And  of  chap.  17,  21-23  ? 


The  Son  of  God  in  relation  to  the  World.  93 

§20. 
TJie  Son  of  God  in  relation  to  the  World. 

The  name  of  the  Father  is  revealed  by  the  Son  in  a  world, 
which  through  sin  and  its  ruler  stands  under  the  power  of  dark- 
ness, but  receives  new  light  and  life  from  God  in  Christ  Both 
by  his  incarnation  and  his  entire  work,  but  especially  through 
his  suffering  and  death,  he  communicates  to  it  this  light  and 
life.  But  in  order  personally  to  enjoy  this  benefit,  a  faith 
of  the  heart  is  indispensable,  the  requirement  of  which  rests 
upon  reasonable  grounds,  but  which  from  moral  causes  is  by 
no  means  found  in  all. 

1.  The  Son  from  all  eternity  stands  in  relation  to  the  Father, 
but  his  relation  to  the  world  commenced  at  a  definite  period. 
In  regard  to  this  latter  relation  before  his  incarnation,  our  Lord 
makes  no  statement  in  the  Gospel  of  John.     But  so  much  the 
more  explicitly  does  he  speak  in  regard  to  what,  having  once 
appeared  in  the  world,  he  proposes  and  does.     Before,  however, 
we  consider  this  work,  it  is  necessary  to  become  acquainted 
with  the  theatre  on  which  it  is  performed. 

2.  In  the  frequent  instances  in  which  our  Lord  in  John's 
Gospel  speaks  of  "the  world,"  the  term  is  not  always  to  be 
taken  in  the  same  sense.     The  idea  expressed  by  it  has  both  a 
physical  and  an  ethical  side.     In  the  former  sense  it  must  be 
understood,  for  instance,  when  He  says  that  He  has  come  into 
the  world  and  now,  again,  leaves  it  (16,  28) ;  in  the  latter,  when 
He  testifies  of  his  disciples  that  they  are  not,  even  as  He  is 
not,  of  the  world  (17,  14).     In  the  first  case,  "  world  "  is  the 
same  as  "  earth,"  this  (mundane,  visible)  world,  as  it  is  often 
called  by  way  of  emphasis,  as  distinguished  from  the  invisible 
and  higher  world, — in  a  word,  the  world  of  mankind  (8,  12),  and 
without  regard  to  the  relation  of  its  inhabitants  to  God.     An 
ethical  side  of  the  word  may  be  observed,  whenever  in  its  con- 
nection, it  plainly  designates  the  mass  of  mankind  alienated  from 
God,  not  merely  ungodly,  but  anti-godly.     It  is  thus  to  be  un- 
derstood, for  example,  in  John  3,  17 ;  14,  19 ;  15,  19.     Since, 


94:  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

now,  our  Lord  is  conscious  of  standing  not  only  as  the  heav- 
enly one  in  distinction  from  every  thing  earthly,  but  also  as 
the  holy  one  as  opposed  to  the  impure,  and  calls  by  the  name 
of  flesh  all  that  is  born  of  flesh,  it  is  no  wonder  that  the  term 
"world "  is  used  in  an  unfavorable  sense. 

3.  In  this  world,  further,  sin  (d^T/a)  rules,  and  this  sin  is 
not  infirmity  merely,  but  a  dreadful  power,  which  subjects  the 
world  to  itself  and  renders  it  worthy  of  eternal  judgment  (3, 
17).  The  universality  of  sin,  which  is  always  assumed  by  our 
Lord  whenever  He  speaks  of  his  coming  to  and  his  indispensa- 
bleness  for  the  world,  is  moreover  expressly  placed  in  the  fore- 
ground, in  the  discourse  upon  the  new  birth  (3,  5-8).  The 
birth  from  the  flesh,  which  is  common  to  all  men,  is  not  only 
insufficient  to  bring  them  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  makes 
them  absolutely  unfit  for  that  kingdom,  unless  they  are  born 
again  of  the  Spirit.  Here  likewise  (as  in  Matt.  26,  41),  the 
word,  flesh,  in  its  antithesis  to  Spirit,  has  not  only  a  physical  but 
also  an  ethical  sense.  This  flesh  is  now,  in  man  as  he  is  by 
nature,  the  leading  and  controlling  power.  The  judging  after 
the  flesh  (8,  15)  leads  necessarily  to  error,  and  is  the  more  fatal 
because  those  blinded  by  this  power  always  think  they  see  (9, 
41).  Sin,  also,  when  it  once  controls  a  man,  renders  him  its 
slave  (8,  34),  and  this  slave  walks  in  darkness,  which  in  the 
uniform  language  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  a  symbol  of  the  deep- 
est misery  (12,  35).  The  sinner  fails  of  the  true  light,  because 
the  true  life  is  wanting ;  he  lives  in  a  state  of  spiritual  death, 
from  which  he  must  be  waked  and  yet  can  only  be,  through  the 
mighty  word  of  the  Son  of  God  (5,  24).  Sin,  indeed,  has  dif- 
ferent degrees  (19,  11),  but  not  one  at  which  it  can  be  pronoun- 
ced excusable.  It  reaches  its  culmination  in  the  crime  of  the 
rejection  of  Christ,  in  comparison  with  which  all  other  guilt  is 
almost  nothing  (15,  22-25),  and  which  is  nothing  less  than  the 
dreadful  manifestation  of  a  blind  hate  against  God  (15,  23). 
No  wonder  that  it  is  punished  in  the  most  terrible  manner.  If 
the  Johannean  Christ  declines  to  recognize  in  particular  calam- 
ities the  punishment  of  particular  sins  (9,  3),  he  yet  teaches 
in  general  as  an  unquestionable  truth,  that  this  sinful  world 
already  lies  under  sentence  of  condemnation,  which,  if  not 
averted,  will  inevitably  end  in  damnation  (5,  24.  29). 


The  San  of  God  in  relation  to  the  World.  95 

4.  Whence  this  dominion  of  sin  and  death  in  the  world  ?    Our 
Lord  speaks  of  the  Prince  of  this  world  (o  tigx"'"  T.  xoa^ov)  as  the 
enemy  of  God  and  his  kingdom.     To  special  demoniacal  pos- 
session He  does  not  here  refer  (miracles  in  connection  with  those 
thus  affected  do  not  come  into  view  in  the  fourth  Gospel),  but 
the  world  apostate  from  God,  appears  in  his  view  as  the  great 
possessed  one,  which  is  ruled  by  this  monarch,  and  which  He 
only  can  heal  (John  12,  32 ;  com  p.  Luke  10,  18).     His  life,  and 
especially  his  sufferings,  are  one  single  struggle  against  this  ene- 
my, from  which  He  comes  forth  in  triumph.     This  power  is  ever 
laying  snares  even  for  his  disciples  (17,  15),   but  the   hostile 
Jews,  in  particular,  show  by  their  deeds  that  they  are  kindred 
of  the  Devil  (8,  44)  who  was  a  murderer  from  the  beginning. 
Our  Lord  here  refers  obviously,  not  to  the  murder  of  the  first 
brother  (1  John  3,  12)  but  to  the  history  of  the  fall  (Gen.  3)j; 
and  to  the  question,  whence  comes  sin  in  the  Wicked  One,  He 
simply  answers,  that  he  did  not  stand  (oty  eo-r^xev)  in  the  truth, 
because  there  is  no  truth  in  him.     His  element  is  not  this,  but 
falsehood ;  accordingly  he  is  a  liar  and  a  murderer  from  the  be- 
ginning, that  is,  from  the  beginning  of  the  history  of  sin  in  the 
race  of  man.     Our  Lord  does  not  say  that  the  Devil  was  cre- 
ated evil ;  nor  even  that  he  may  be  called  a  fallen  angel,  for  the 
simple  reason,  that  he  is  here  speaking  only  of  the  origin  of  sin 
in  man,  and  not  at  all  in  the  world  of  spirits.     To  infer  from 
this  silence  that  He  favors  what  is  known  as  Dualism,  that  is, 
that  he  conceived  of  the  Wicked  One  as  an  eternal,  independent 
principle  of  evil,  is  to  go  beyond  what  the  letter  or  spirit  of 
this  mysterious  declaration  warrants. 

5.  But  although  every  one  who  serves  sin,  is  also  a  servant 
of  this  kingdom  of  darkness,  all  men  do  not  stand  in  exactly 
the  same  relation  to  it.     On  the  contrary  our  Lord  recognizes, 
aside  from  the  relation  in  which  they  stand  to  Him,  two  differ- 
ent kinds  of  men, — those  who  see  with  the  natural  eye  and  are 
blind,  and  those  who  are  blind  and  yet  are  desirous  of  salva- 
tion and  would  see  (9,  39-41) ;  those  who  do  evil  in  virtue  of 
their  governing  principle,  and  those  who  do  the  truth  (3,  20.  21) 
and  hear  God's  word,  because  they  are  of  God  (8,  45)  and  would 
do  his  will  (7,  17)  and  have  inwardly  heard  and  learned  of  Him 
(6,  45).     To  those  thus  seeking  light,  the  light  needs  only  to  be 


96  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

revealed,  in  order  to  be  immediately  recognized  and  followed. 
To  others,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  morally  impossible  to  distin- 
guish the  truth,  because  in  consequence  of  the  dominion  of  the 
wicked  principle  the  receptivity  for  it  is  wanting.  They  can- 
not believe  (5,  40-44)  and  will  not  therefore  come  to  Jesus ; 
they  do  not  belong  to  his  sheep  (10,  26).  They  do  not  love 
Christ,  because,  in  the  moral  sense  of  the  word,  the  Devil,  not 
God,  is  their  Father  (8,  42). 

6.  The  cause  of  this  profound  difference,  lies,  according  to 
the  teachings  of  our  Lord,  neither  in  God,  for  his  aim  is  to  save 
the  world  (3,  16.  17),  to  and  for  which  he  has  sent  his  Son ; 
nor  in  an  insuperable  necessity  of  nature ;  for  He  never  favors 
an  essentially  dualistic  philosophy,  and  it  would  be  impossible 
for  Him  to  threaten  unbelief  with  a  punishment  so  severe  as  He 
does,  if  it  was  merely  fate  and  not  guilt.     How  could  He  have 
said,  for  example  (15,  24)  "  they  have  no  cloak  for  their  sin,"  if 
they  were  not  personally  responsible  for  it?     It  is  thus  in  ac- 
cordance with  his  spirit  to  ascribe  to  Him  the  conviction,  which 
we  have  seen  that  He  expresses  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  that 
the  not  being  willing  is  an  act  of  freedom,  the  not  being  able  a 
result  of  the  misuse  of  freedom,  and  that  on  the  contrary  when 
faith  exists  in  the  heart,  the  glory  of  it  must  be  ascribed  to  the 
drawing  of  the  Father  (6,  44).     On  the  precise  connection  be- 
tween grace  and  freedom  He  here  speaks  even  less  expressly 
than  there ;  it  is  enough,  that  He  distinguishes  and  unites  the 
two  factors. 

7.  In  this  world,  thus  blinded  and  distracted,  Christ  appears 
as  the  highest  revelation  of  the  Father.     That  He  appears  is  the 
fruit  of  the  love  of  God,  who  proposes  to  present  light  and  life. 
The  universality  of  the  Divine  plan  of  redemption  is  so  em- 
phatically declared  by  our  Lord   (John  3,  16.  17 ;  12,  32 ;  17, 
21)  that  only  a  sophistical  interpretation  in  the  service  of  an 
arbitrary  assumption  can  derive  the  contrary  from  his  words. 
In  obedience  to  the  will  of  the  Father,  the  Lord,  the  living 
bread,  has  come  down  from  heaven,  in  order  to  give  life  to  the 
world  (6,  33.  38).     That  this  will  of  the  Father,  however,  is 
also  His,  is  evident  from  this,  that  He  is  not  merely  sent,   but 
came  forth  (16,  28),  so  that  destination  and  work  are  for  Him 
blended  in  a  higher  unity  (10,  17.  18  ;  14,  31). 


The  Son  of  God  in  relation  to  the  World.  97 

8.  Christ  becomes  the  light  of  the  world  particularly  through 
his  appearance  and  his  work  on  earth.     But  he  is  such  also 
through  his  word.     He  has  appeared  in  order  to  bear  witness  to 
religious  truth  (eUrj#e««  18,  37),  approves  the  calling  Him  mas- 
ter, by  his  disciples  (13,  14)  and  sharply  brings  out  in  the  form 
of  a  new  commandment  the  chief  requirement  of  his  Gospel 
(13,  34).     As  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  so  in  John,  he  adheres 
as  closely  as  possible  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament, 
which  in  no  case  can  be  broken  (10,  35  ;  13, 18 ;  15,  25  ;  comp. 
5,  39  ;  6,  45 ;  7,  38).     Yet  the  truth,  already  there  announced, 
is  now  first  brought  prominently  forward,  in  its  full  light,  be- 
fore the  world.     It  is  his  person,  in  which  it  concentrates  itself, 
as  it  were,  and  reveals  itself  to  the  open  eye  (8,  12  ;  12,  35 ;  14, 
6).     And  this  revelation  of  the  truth  is  one  with  the  commu- 
nication of  the  life.     He  calls  himself  the  Life  and  the  Kesur- 
rection  (11,  25),  not  because  He  himself  arose,  but  because  he 
calls  forth  others  from  the  grave  (comp.  5,  25.  26) — "the  per- 
sonal power  of  both,  the  one  who  wakes  and  makes  alive " 
(MEYER).     Life  he  now  gives  in  the  spiritual   sense  (5,  25. 
26),  and  once  also  to  all  the  dead  (vv.  28.  29)  in  the  natural  sense. 

9.  This    life   and    resurrection,   however,    stand    connected 
with  judgment.     Christ  is  come  into  the  world  for  judgment 
(9,  39) ;  his  appearance  and  work  bring  about  a  separation,  a 
crisis  between  man  and  man.     The  inner  difference  between  the 
direction  of  their  lives  manifests  itself  in  their  relation  to  Him. 
Thus  He  is  here  in  fact  a  judge,  although  he  originally  ap- 
peared as  a  Saviour  (3,  17 ;  12,  47 ;  comp.  5,  45 ;  8,  11).*    His 
judgment  consists  in  this,  that  the  darkness  is  manifested  as 
darkness  (3,  18),   and  this  judgment  becomes  constantly  more 
manifest  as  his  life  on  earth  approaches  its  termination.     In  His 
death,  particularly,  is  the  prince  of  this  world  judged  (12,  31. 
32  ;  16,  11).     And  once  at  the  end  of  the  world  the  great,  inner 
separation  will  be  brought  to  light  before  all  eyes  (5,  27-29 ; 
12,  48).     From  the  nature  of  the  case  the  Messianic  judgment 
extends  to  all,  but  the  believer  does  not  come  into  judgment 
(3,  18  ;  5,  24),  in  the  sense  that  he  is  here  in  the  possession  of 

*  On  ihe  genuineness  of  John  7,  53 — 8,  11,  see  an  article  by  C.  GRAF,  in  the 
Viertel/jahrschrift  fur  deutsche  u.  engl.  Theol  Zur.,  1866. 

7 


98  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

eternal  life,  and  free  from  the  sentence  of  death  and  condemna- 
tion. 

10.  A  work  like  that  of  Jesus  must  necessarily  encounter 
opposition.     It  culminates  in  suffering   and  death,  but  even 
these,  instead  of  working  against  the  design  of  his  coming, 
must  on  the  contrary,  according  to  his  own  explanation,  fur- 
ther it;  his  death  will  be  the  overcoming  of  the  world  (16, 
33).     In  the  fourth  Gospel  also  we  find  our  Lord  foretelling  his 
suffering  and  death,  first  in  a  more  indirect  and  figurative  man- 
ner (2,  19 ;  3,  14 ;  4,  37),  afterwards,  more  expressly  and  une- 
quivocally (8,  40  ;  10,  17.  18).     Here,  too,  we  witness  the  natu- 
ral distress  (12,  27)  with  which  He  anticipates  the  approaching 
"hour,"  and  at  the  same  time  his  free  choice,  in  obedience  (14, 
31)  and  love  (15,  13)  to  drink  the  bitter  cup.     Here  likewise, 
this  suffering  is  represented  as  connected  with  the  distinct  coun- 
sel and  will  of  the  Father  (10,  18 ;  19,  11)  and  as  having  the 
same  ground,  and  the  same  glorious  design  and  issue,  as  else- 
where.    It  is  wholly  undeserved  on  his  part  (5,  25),  and  is  laid 
upon  Him  by  the  wickedness  of  men  (8,  37-40 ;  15,  20)  but 
has  at  the  same  time  an  efficacy  to  work  out  salvation  for  them. 
He  calls  his  flesh,  which  he  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world, 
heavenly  bread  (6,  51V*     As  the  good  Shepherd,  He  gives  his 
life,  in  order  to  snatch  them  from  inevitable  destruction  (10, 
11-13).     His  being  lifted  up  on  the  cross  has  a  similar  design 
with  that  of  the  brazen  serpent  in  the  wilderness  (3,  14.  15). 
To  this  design  the  fruit  corresponds,  not  merely  to  his  disciples 
for  whose  sanctification  he  freely  offered  up  himself  to  God  as 
a  sacrifice  (17,  19),  but  also  in  a  wider  circle;    to  his  king- 
dom,— the  dead  grain  of  wheat  lives  again  in  other  stalks  (12, 
24) ;  to  the  world, — it  is  judged  and  its  prince  cast  out  (8,  28  ; 
12,  31);    to  Himself, — He   is  glorified  through  suffering  (17, 
1),  for  he  rises  from  the  dead,  as  he  repeatedly  predicts  in  ex- 
press language  in  the  Gospel  of  John  10,  17 ;  2,  19 ,  comp. 
Matt.  27,  63).     Thus  his  death  becomes,  ic.  the  fullest  sense, 
not  the  limit,  but  the  crown  of  his  work. 

11.  The  salvation  brought  by  him,  is  however  by  no  means 
obtained  by  all     In  John  also  our  Lord  makes  a  participation 

*  The  words  f)v  tyu  6wau  we  think  must  be  retained.     Comp.  \Leven  van  Jesus 
II,  bl.  453. 


The  Son  of  God  in  relation  to  the  World.  99 

in  this  salvation  absolutely  dependent  upon  faith  in  Him,  which 
here  likewise  is  called  a  coming  to  the  Son,  and  at  the  same 
time  a  seeing  Him  with  a  spiritual  eye  (6,  35.  40).  If  the  word 
faith  (niarjis)  as  a  substantive,  does  not  occur  in  his  discourses  in 
John,  the  requirement  of  faith,  and  of  that  in  which  its  essence 
consists,  may  yet  be  easily  derived  from  them.  And  although 
the  idea  of  holding  a  thing  to  be  true  is  not  here  to  be  exclu- 
ded (especially  when  n UTTEVEU>  is  construed  with  or*  or  with  the 
accusative),  yet  the  deepest  essence  of  faith  is  confidence  of  the 
heart,  which  attaches  itself  most  intimately  to  Him  and  receives 
Him  (13,  20).  He  himself  is  the  object  of  faith  (3,  16  and 
elsewhere),  and  of  such  value  is  it  in  the  sight  of  God  that  faith 
alone  is  fundamentally  required  as  the  work  preeminently  ac- 
ceptable to  Him  (6,  29),  and  justly.  Christ  has  credentials 
such  as  no  one  before  or  after  Him  has  ever  had. 

12.  The  grounds,  on  which  our  Lord  requires  faith  in  Him, 
and  rests  his  heavenly  dignity  are  three-fold.     They  are  bor- 
rowed from  the  past,  the  present  and  the  future.     In  the  past, 
the  Father  has  borne  witness  of  Him  (5,  33-39),  partly  through 
the  prophetic  Scriptures,  which  render  unbelief  absolutely  inex- 
cusable, and  partly  through  the  sending  of  John,  to  whom  the 
Jews  themselves  had  resorted.     As  to  the  present,  our  Lord 
appeals  partly  to  the  testimony  of  his  works,  by  which  he  refers 
neither  exclusively  nor  mainly  to  his  miracles,  but  in  general 
to  all  the  revelations  of  his  divine  glory,  miracles  included  (5, 
36 ;  10,  38 ;  14,  11),  and  partly  to  the  inward  testimony  of  the 
heart  and  conscience,  which  sees  in  his  word  the  deepest  wants 
satisfied  (7,  17).     In  the  future,  He  expected  the  justification  of 
his  cause  from  the  evidence  given  for  the  truth  of  his  words  by 
their  fulfillment  (14,  29).     His  death  on  the  cross  was  to  serve 
to  open  the  eyes  of  even  his  enemies  (8,  28),  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  plead  triumphantly  for  his  cause  against  the  unbeliev- 
ing world  (16,  8-11). 

13.  Since  there  is,  thus,  sufficient  ground  for  the  faith  required 
in   Christ,  unbelief  is  inexcusable  and  yet  not  inexplicable. 
Moral  causes  for  this  unbelief  may  be  shown,  which  are  over- 
come only  by  higher  power  (6,  44).     The  perverted  state  of  the 
disposition  darkens  the  eye  of  the  understanding  and  alienates 
from  the  Gospel.     For  the  truth  is  a  matter  not  for  the  intel- 


100  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

lect  but  for  the  life :  he  who  will  not  do  the  truth,  cannot  see 
it  (3,  21).  So  little  does  this  perverse  disposition  admit  of  ex- 
cuse that  an  appeal  to  Moses  is  entirely  sufficient  to  expose  its 
unreasonableness  (5,  45-47).  If  He  does  not  accuse  them  to 
the  Father,  it  is  not  because  He  might  not  do  so ;  hence  the 
cause  of  this  evil  can  never  be  found  in  Him,  and  on  the  other 
hand  it  is  to  be  ascribed  to  Him  alone  that  in  many  the  strength 
of  the  evil  principle  is  subdued,  for  they  who  belong  to  the 
Son  have  been  given  to  Him  of  the  Father  (17,  2). 

Comp.  in  general,  VAN  OOSTEEZEE,  "  Christology"  II,  bl.  89 ; 
also  KEUSS  and  SCHMID  ;  and  in  regard  to  particular  points, 
SCHMID,  Doctrina  de  Diabolo  in  libris  Joh.  proposita,  Jena,  1800 ; 
NACHENIUS,  de  notione  TOTS  %ot?  et  r&  %w,  quce  Jesus  sibi 
vindicat^  tribuenda,  Amstel,  1841 ;  KUTGERS,  de  fundamento, 
quo  Joh.  auctore  fidem  sibi  habendam  niti  voluerit  Christus,  L.  B. 
1860  ;  JONKEB,  "  The  Gospel  of  John,"  Amst,  1867. 

Questions  for  Consideration. — Do  the  declarations  of  our  Lord 
in  the  fourth  Gospel  authorize  the  position  that  He  endorses 
dualism  in  the  sphere  of  morals  ? — Is  John  8,  44  spoken  of  the 
devil  only  or  of  the  father  of  the  devil  (HILGENFELD)  ? — Do 
the  anthropological  declarations  of  the  Johannean  Christ  leave 
room  for  the  ideas  of  free  will  and  guilt? — How  may  John  3, 
17  be  reconciled  with  12,  48  ? — Is  there  sufficient  ground  for 
regarding  chap.  5,  28.  29  and  the  last  words  of  chap.  6,  40.  54 
and  12,  48  as  genuine  ? — Did  our  Lord  in  chap.  3,  14.  15  (comp. 
12,  32.  33)  actually  speak  of  his  being  lifted  up  on  the  cross  ? — 
Has  John  in  chap.  2,  21  and  7,  39  correctly  explained  the 
words  of  the  Master? 

§21. 

The  Son  of  God  in  his  relation  to  his  Disciples. 

They  who  are  given  by  the  Father  to  the  Son,  and  in 
consequence  of  this  come  through  the  Son  to  the  Father,  are 
brought  into  a  vital  communion  with  the  Son  and  through  Him 
with  one  another,  the  peculiar  character  of  which  is  known 
only  in  the  way  of  spiritual  experience,  and  the  beneficent  in- 
fluence of  which  manifests  itself  in  the  whole  direction  of  their 


The  Son  of  God  in  his  relation  to  his  Disciples.  101 

inner  and  outer  life.  Through  the  sending  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
after  our  Lord's  departure  from  the  earth,  this  communion  is 
modified,  but  in  no  respect  terminated. 

1.  On  the  one  hand  it  is  certain,  according  to  the  teachings 
of  our  Lord  in  John,  that  the  Father  draws  to  the  Son  (6,  44. 
45) ;  on  the  other  that  it  is  impossible  without  the  Son  to  come 
to  the  Father  (14,  6).     These  two  ideas  do  not  exclude  but  mu- 
tually supplement  each  other.     The  Divine  drawing 
which  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  external  calling 

in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  is  a  psychological  constraint  (6,  45) 
but  not  in  any  degree  a  mechanical  compulsion ;  so  far  from 
excluding  man's  own  agency,  it  rather  presupposes  and  re- 
quires it. 

2.  They  who  are  thus  brought  to  the  Son  and  through  Him 
to  the  Father,  do  not  by  any  means  stand  alone,  but  are  most 
intimately  united  with  the  Lord  and  with  each  other.     Only 
once  in  the  Gospel  of  John  does  Jesus  speak  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  (3,.  3.  5 ;  comp.  18,  36.  37),  but  yet  the  idea  which  is 
realized  through  this  kingdom  stands,  on  the  last  evening  of  his 
life,  in  its  full  glory,  before  his  eyes  (17,  21-23).     Here,  too,  it 
is  manifest  that  He  will  have  a  communion  of  all  in  whom  the 
same  spiritual  life  exists.     In  respect  to  the  external  forms,  per- 
taining to  the  foundation  and  support  of  this  communion,  we 
here  find  still  less  than  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels.     A  birth  from 
water  and  the  Spirit  is  required  (3,  5),  an  eating  and  drinking 
of  his  flesh  and  blood  is  represented  as  absolutely  necessary  (6, 
53),  but  farther  not  the  least  mention  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  made.     The  washing  of  feet  (13,  14),  moreover,  is 
not  prescribed  as  a  sacrament,  but  serves  only  as  a  model  and 
emblem.     So  much   the   stronger  is  the  emphasis  which  our 
Lord  lays  upon  the  existence  of  the  communion  which  unites 
Him  with  his  disciples. 

3.  It  is  well  known  that  in  the  fourth  Gospel  we  have  no 
proper  parables  like  those  which  so  frequently  occur  in  the 
three  first.     In  place  of  these,  we  here  find  a  number  of  com- 
parisons, so  extended  and  amplified  that  they  occasionally  ap- 
proach the  form  of  parable  (see  e.  g.  10,  11-16 ;  15,  1-6).     As 
the  parables    relate    to   the  kingdom   of   God,   so  all   these 


102  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

metaphors  refer  to  the  communion  between  Him  and  his 
disciples,  and  bring  to  view  in  various  forms,  what  they  would 
be  without  Him,  what  they  may  find  in  Him,  and  what  for 
Him  they  must  become.  He  is  the  Bread  of  life  (6,  48),  the 
Light  of  the  world  (8,  12),  the  good  Shepherd  (10, 11),  the  true 
Vine  (15,  1).  In  respect  to  all  these  comparisons  it  must  be 
observed,  that  they  indicate  not  so  much  the  value  of  our 
Lord's  teachings,  as  of  his  entire  personality,  and  this  especially 
for  his  followers :  next,  that  they  exhibit  salvation  not  only  as 
indispensable  but  as  priceless,  and  as  something  which  can 
be  satisfactorily  known  and  properly  appreciated  only  by  ex- 
perience ;  and  finally,  that  they  relate  to  a  mutual  communion, 
which,  wholly  gratuitous  on  his  part  (15,  16),  can  be  preserved 
by  them  only  through  faithful  perseverance  in  faith  and  love, 
and  without  which  it  will  be  necessarily  broken  (15,  6  ;  comp. 
17,  12). 

4.  This  spiritual  communion  with  the  Lord  is  not  attainable 
without  the  new  birth  (John  3,  5-8).     Just  as  in  the  Synop- 
tical Gospels  He  requires  an  entire  change  of  mind,  so  here  a 
being  born  of  God,  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  see  the 
kingdom  of  God.      The  necessity  of  this   birth  lies  in  the 
absolute  unfitness  of  the  carnal  man,  i.  e.,  man  as  he  is  by 
nature,  for  a  spiritual  kingdom  of  God.     Its  origin  is  as  mys- 
terious, but  also  as  easy  to  be  recognized,  as  the  agency  of  the 
wind  in  the  natural  world,  and  its  possibility  is  given  in  what 
God  has  done  and   does   through  Christ  to  give  new  life  to 
mankind. 

5.  The   communion   with   Christ   which  is   thus  produced 
manifests  itself  in  rich  and  glorious  fruits  (15,  6).     Whoever  is 
his   disciple,    learns  to   understand    the  truth    and    becomes 
through  it  free  from  sin  (8,  32-36).     But  he  becomes  at  the 
same  time  the  partaker  of  a  life,  which  is  different  in  every 
thing  from  that  which  he  formerly  led.     It  is  a  life  rich  in  joy 
(15,  11 ;  16,  22),  and  at  the  same  time  in  abundant  fruit  by 
which  God  is  glorified  (15,  8).     The  noblest  of  these  fruits  is 
mutual  brotherly  love,  which  in  this  form  is  the  new  com- 
mandment of  Christianity,  and  the  unchangeable  sign  of  the 
disciples  of  the  Lord  (13,  34.  35),  and  is  preeminently  necessary 
in  the  midst  of  a  world,  which  in  virtue  of  its  character  cannot 


1  y  v  n .  •        &         :.<4±* 


The  Son  of  God  in  relation  to  his  Disciples.  103 

but  hate  his  genuine  disciples  (15,  9-16).  Love  stands,  more- 
over, in  the  closest  connection  with  their  personal  sanctification, 
which  constitutes  the  end  for  which  our  Lord  gave  himself  to 
death  (17,  17-19),  and  which  reveals  itself  preeminently  in  the 
faithful  observance  of  his  commandments  (15,  14)  and  the 
careful  imitation  of  the  example  of  ministering  love,  which  He 
himself  bequeathed  to  his  disciples  before  his  departure  (13, 
13-17). 

6.  Such  a  moral   elevation  would  be  unattainable,  if  the 
communion  with  Christ  were  destroyed  by  his  death.     It  is 
modified  indeed  by  his  departure  from  earth,  but  by  no  means 
ended.      On  the  contrary  he  promises  before  his    death  the 
Holy  Spirit  (14,  16.  17)  and  repeats  this  promise  in  a  symbol- 
ical manner,  after  his  resurrection  (20,  22).     In  regard  to  the 
nature  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  our  Lord  expressly  distinguishes 
Him  both  from  Himself  and  from  the  Father  (14,  16).     He 
calls  Him  the  Spirit  of  truth,  of  the  Father  (15,  26),  the  Para- 
clete, who  remains  with  and  in  his  disciples  forever  (14,  16). 
In  this  Spirit,   He  himself  invisibly  comes  to  his  followers, 
although  absent  from  them  in  body  (14, 18). 

7.  The  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  connected  partly  with 
his  disciples,  partly  with  the  world,  and  partly  with  Himself 
(16,  7-15).     The  disciples  are  reminded  through  his  influence 
of  what  was  before  spoken ;  led,  in  respect  to  present  things,  to 
the  knowledge  of  all  truth ;  and  enlightened,  so  far  as  is  ne- 
cessary, in  regard  to  the  future  of  the  kingdom  of  God.     The 
world  is  assured  by  his  mission  of  the  sin  of  rejecting  Christ, 
of  the  righteousness  of  his  cause,  and  of  the  judgment  executed 
upon  its  prince  (16.  8-11).     He  himself  is  thereby  glorified  (vs. 
14)   and  manifested  in  his  exalted  dignity.      But  since  this 
mission  and  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  impossible  so  long  as 
He  himself  remains  on  earth,  his  departure  is  no  loss,   but 
rather  a  priceless  gain  to  his  disciples  (14,  28 ;  16,  7). 

8.  This  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  takes  the  place  indeed  of 
the  earthly  ministry  of  the  Lord,  but  by  no  means  excludes 
his  personal  ministry  in  heaven.     It  has  been  sometimes  incor- 
rectly maintained,  that   according  to  the   fourth  Gospel   the 
reign  of  Christ  consists  only  in  the  reign  of  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
so  that  we  can  properly  speak  of  no  farther  agency  or  rule  of 


104  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

the  Ascended  One.  But  the  Holy  Spirit  is  sent  only  at  the 
intercession  of  the  Son  (14,  16)  ;  He  himself  it  is  who  will  do 
what  his  disciples  ask  in  his  name  (14,  14);  He  sends  the 
Spirit  from  the  Father  (15,  26),  and  brings  the  sheep  which 
belong  to  another  fold  (10,  16).  Such  expressions  would  not 
have  the  shadow  of  propriety,  if  He  who  uttered  them  was  not 
fully  conscious  that  He  would  ever  live  for  his  disciples  and 
constantly  act  upon  them ;  it  cannot  however  be  denied  that  this 
ministry  is  here  rather  presupposed  than  described  at  length. 
The  same  thought  also  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  figurative 
representation  of  his  going  away  to  prepare  a  place  for  them 
(14,  2).  In  the  Holy  Spirit  He  himself  comes  and  remains 
forever  with  his  disciples,  until  He  reveals  himself  in  still 
higher  glory  at  the  end  of  the  world. 

Comp.  EEUSS,  II.  p.  415 ;  SCHMID,  II.  S.  293  ff. ;  TISCHEN- 
DORF,  de  Christo,  pane  vitae,  Joh.  6,  41-59,  Leipz.,  1839 ;  YAN 
TEUTEM,  "  The  last  night  of  the  Lord"  Eotterd.,  1850;  WOR- 
NER,  "  The  relation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Son  of  God,  exhibited 
from  the  Gospel  of  John,"  Stuttg.,  1862. 

Questions  for  Consideration. — What  is  the  sense  of  John  6, 
44? — Whence  is  it  that  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  no  parables, 
properly  so  called,  occur  ? — Does  John  6,  41-59  shed  any  light 
upon  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  —  Is  the  washing  of  feet  in  John 
13,  13.  14,  prescribed  by  our  Lord  to  his  disciples  as  a  per- 
manent rite? — In  what  sense  is  the  commandment  in  Chap. 
13.  34  spoken  of  as  new  ? — Survey  and  criticism  of  the  principal 
explanations  of  the  Lord's  farewell  promise  in  respect  to  his 
coming  and  return. — Connection  and  difference  of  the  work  of 
the  ascended  Jesus  and  of  the  Paraclete,  according  to  the  Jo- 
hannean  Christ. — Is  there  any  good  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
conception  of  a  mystical  union  of  the  glorified  Jesus  with  his 
disciples  proceeded  from  Him  ?  What  is  the  meaning  of  Chap. 
16,26? 

§22. 
The  Son  of  God  in  his  Future. 

The  eternal  life,  which  is  here  a  fruit  of  the  personal, 
abiding  communion  with  Christ,  survives  the  death  of  his 


The  Son  of  God  in  his  Future.  105 

disciples  and  passes  after  that  event  into  everlasting  blessed- 
ness. According  to  the  Johannean  Christ,  likewise,  we  are 
to  expect  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  a  general  judgment  and 
an  irrevocable  decision  at  the  last  day. 

1.  According  to  the  steady  representation  of  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel, the  believer  in  Christ  has  already,  in  this  world,  eternal 
life.     It  consists  in  the  right  knowledge  of  God  and  Christ 
(17,  3)  and  in  the  satisfaction  of  all  the  wants  of  the  soul  which 
flows  therefrom  (6,  35).     Expressions  however  are  not  want- 
ing, which  show  that  this  eternal  life  is  not  enjoyed  exclu- 
sively here  below.     In  passages  like  John  4,  14 ;  6,  27 ;  12,  25, 
it  is  clear  that  our  Lord  thought  also  of  the  "beyond."     Yet 
generally  in  this  Gospel  He  comprehends  under  eternal  life  all 
that  salvation,  which  is  received  at  once  by  his  disciples  upon 
their  coming  into  communion  with  Him,  and  which  stands  in 
direct  opposition  to  being  lost  forever  (10,  28). 

2.  This  life  is,  from  its  very  nature,  absolutely  indestruct- 
ible.    He  who  possesses  it  has  an  imperishable  and  blessed  life 
even  before  his  death  and  still  more  after  it.     Instead  of  being 
annihilated,  it  ripens  into  undisturbed  blessedness  beyond  the 
grave.     In  the  Johannean  Christ  also,  there  is  no  trace  of  a 
sleep  of  the  soul  till  the  morning  of  the  resurrection.     On  the 
contrary,  when  Martha  expects  her  dead  brother  to  live  again 
at  the  last  day  and  not  before,  our  Lord  assures  her,  that  the 
believer  who  dies,  does  not  thereby  cease  to  live  (11,  25.  26). 
To  the  question  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  blessedness 
enjoyed  by  his  disciples  on  the  other  side  of  the  grave,  He 
gives  in  reply  significant  hints.     The  higher  life  is  guarded 
and  secured  even  by  the  sacrifice,  if  necessary,  of  the  natural 
life  (12,  25).     Whoever  serves  Him  is  honored  of  the  Father, 
shall  be  where  He  is,  and  in  union  with  all  the  redeemed  shall 
behold  his  glory  (12,  26 ;  17,  24).    As  a  friend  He  hastens  before 
to  prepare  a  place  for  his  disciples  in  the  many  mansions  of  his 
Father's  house,  and  invisibly  appears  in  the  hour  of  death,  to 
take  them  forever  to  himself  (14,  1-3). 

3.  The  continuance  of  the  life,  however,  in  which  death  is 
never  seen  (8,  51)  is  not  the  completion  of  blessedness.     In  the 
fourth  Gospel,  likewise,  our  Lord  speaks  of  a  resurrection  and 


106  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

a  judgment  at  the  last  day  (cy  fox0"*!  ^,u%,  5,  27-29  ;  6,  39.  40. 
44.  54 ;  12,  48) ;  a  resurrection  absolutely  universal,  a  judgment 
which  the  Father  has  committed  to  Him  and  at  which  his  own 
word  will  be  the  standard.  These  hints  are  so  brief  and  spo- 
radic that  it  is  not  easy,  it  must  be  admitted,  to  harmonize 
them  completely  with  the  declarations  already  considered. 
But  this  does  not  authorize  us  either  to  remove  them  from  the 
Gospel  as  the  interpolation  of  a  later  hand  (SCHOLTEN),  or, 
to  weaken  the  obvious  sense  of  the  words  and  explain  them  as 
referring  to  a  merely  spiritual  resurrection  or  a  merely  indi- 
vidual judgment ;  and  all  the  less,  since  our  Lord  repeatedly 
promises  in  one  and  the  same  breath  the  having  eternal  life 
and  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day  (6,  40.  54),  so  that  in  his 
estimation  the  one  does  not  exclude  the  other,  but  on  the  con- 
trary the  second  is  the  crown  of  the  first.  The  question,  how 
a  resurrection  of  those  who  are  already  partakers  of  eternal 
life  can  be  spoken  of,  since  they  are  in  fact  spiritually  raised, 
admits  of  no  difficulty  if  we  only  distinguish  between  the  spir- 
itual reviving,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  body,  which, 
according  to  the  constant  teaching  of  our  Lord,  will  not  take 
place  till  his  final  coming. 

4.  Although  in  John  He  certainly  in  general  represents  his 
coming  as  spiritual,  yet  once  at  least  (21,  22)  He  speaks  of  it  in 
a  way,  which  renders  it  difficult  to  understand  his  final  appear- 
ance in  any  other  sense  than  that  in  which  his  return  is  con- 
stantly spoken  of  in   the  Synoptical  Gospels — a  proof  that, 
even  in  the  matter  of  eschatology,  the  discrepancy,  so  often 
alleged,  between  the  declaration  of  the  Synoptical   and   the 
Johannean   Christ  is  not   absolute,  but  relative.     The   vivid 
imagery  of  the  former  is  sought  for  in  vain  in  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel, but  not  the  leading  thought  which  governs  all. 

5.  The  Johannean  Christ,  also,  teaches  no  restitution  of  all 
things  in  the  sense  which  has  been  at  a  later  period  attached  to 
this  word.     When  he  promises  that,  lifted  up  on  the  cross,  he 
will  draw  all  men  to  himself  (12,  32),  there  is  no  ground  for 
conceiving  of  such  an  irresistible  force  as  finally  to  secure  the 
necessary  salvation  of  absolutely  all.     The  prince  of  this  world 
is  judged  (12,  31),  which  no  more  means  to  be  annihilated  than 
to  be  saved,  but  cast  out,  so  that  he  is  henceforth  powerless  to 


The  Son  of  God  in  his  Future.  107 

destroy  the  harmony  of  the  completed  kingdom  of  God.  The 
unbeliever  dies  in  his  sins  (8,  24)  and  no  further  prospect  of 
life  is  ever  opened  to  him.  Under  one  Shepherd  all  are  to  be 
gathered  into  one  fold  (10,  16),  but  only  all  of  the  sheep,  who 
willingly  hear  his  voice  of  love.  The  resurrection  of  life 
stands  in  irreconcilable  opposition  to  that  of  damnation  (5, 
28.  29),  and  although  no  Hades  or  Gehenna  is  spoken  of  in  the 
fourth  Gospel,  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  in  the  mind  of  the 
speaker  or  writer  the  miserable  ones  who  will  rise  to  condem- 
nation are  to  be  found  anywhere  but  there. 

Comp.  KEUSS  II,  p.  453  sqq. ;  SCHMID  I,  S.  321  ff. ;  MOL- 
STER,  in  the  periodical,  Bijdr.  tot  bevord.  van  •  Bvfb.  uitlegk, 
Deel  III,  bl.  287  sqq.  On  John  5,  28.  29  and  kindred  pas- 
sages, SCHOLTEN,  Jaarb.  voor  wetensch.  Theologie,  Deel  VIII,  bL 
341  sqq. 

Questions  for  Consideration: — The  connection  between  eternal 
life  and  knowledge,  the  loss  of  life  and  the  saving  of  life,  tem- 
poral death  and  spiritual  life. — The  idea  of  6<i*aTo$  in  the  fourth 
Gospel. — Is  there  reason  to  conceive  of  the  xgiais  here  men- 
tioned as  exclusively  taking  place  on  this  side  the  grave? — 
Connection  and  difference  of  the  two  ideas — eternal  life,  and 
resurrection  at  the  last  day. — Does  the  Johannean  Christ  teach 
us  to  expect  a  total  annihilation,  or  an  endless  punishment  of 
the  obstinate  sinner  ? 


108  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

CHAPTER  III. 

HIGHEE  UNITY. 

§23. 

Difference  and  Agreement 

The  difference  between  the  declarations  of  the  Synoptical 
and  the  Johannean  Christ  is  throughout  not  of  such  a  nature 
that  the  impartial  investigator  can  regard  either  the  one  or  the 
other  series  as  only  genuine  and  credible.  On  the  contrary, 
after  careful  comparison,  the  higher  agreement  on  almost  every 
point  is  evident,  and  the  relatively  great  difference  not  only 
admits  of  full  explanation,  but  is  'even  to  be  regarded  in  more 
than  one  respect  as  exceedingly  important. 

1.  The  distinction,  in  consequence  of  which  the  teachings  of 
the  Johannean  Christ  required  a  separate  treatment  (§  17,  1),  is 
entirely  justified  by  the  issue.  It  is  evident  at  every  turn 
that  the  language  of  our  Lord  in  the  fourth  Gospel  is  wholly 
different  from  what  he  spoke  in  the  three  first.  But  it  does 
not  absolutely  follow  from  this,  that  in  John  we  are  listening 
to  an  entirely  different  Christ  from  the  one  in  the  earlier  Gos- 
pels. This  would  be  the  case  only  if  we  should  find  Him 
denying  in  the  one  record  what  he  had  affirmed  in  the  other, 
or  vice  versa.  But  at  every  turn  it  is  plain  that  here  is  no  dif- 
ference like  that  between  yea  and  nay,  but  rather  like  that 
between  more  and  less,  and  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  refute 
the  sayings  of  the  Synoptical  Christ  by  appealing  to  those  of 
the  Christ  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  whenever  at  least  both  are 
properly  considered  in  the  light  of  history.  The  difference  is 
reduced  to  its  true  proportions  in  the  remark  of  GODET :  "In 
respect  to  the  religious  side  of  the  contrast,  it  is  remarkable 
that  the  conscience  of  the  Church  has  never  been  embarrassed, 
and  that  it  is  only  the  learned  who  have  declared  it  to  be  in- 


Difference  and  Agreement.  109 

capable  of  solution.  This  fact  proves  in  any  case  that  for  the 
believing  and  pious  heart  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels 
never  has  been  and  never  will  be  any  other  than  that  of  John. 
The  difference,  therefore,  does  not  reach  the  depths  of  the  re- 
ligious and  moral  life."*  The  justness  of  this  remark  will 
appear,  whenever  we  consider  the  form,  and  much  more  when 
we  take  into  view  the  import  of  the  words  of  our  Lord  in 
John,  as  compared  with  what  we  find  in  the  Synoptical  Gos- 
pels. In  both  respects  the  difference  is  great,  but  still  it  is 
merely  relative  and  susceptible  of  a  full  explanation. 

2.  In  regard  to  the  form,  the  great  similarity  between  the 
language  of  John  himself  and  of  Jesus  as  given  by  John 
(comp.  §  17,  3)  may  be  explained,  partly  by  the  strong  spiritual 
affinity  between  the  Master,  and  the  pupil  who  had  formed  -his 
style  upon  the  language  of  his  teacher ;  partly  by  the  Apos- 
tolic freedom  with  which,  under  higher  guidance,  he  penned 
the  discourses  of  the  Lord.  The  absence  of  parables  in  the 
fourth  Gospel  becomes  less  surprising,  when  we  observe  that 
we  here  meet  the  Lord  for  the  most  part  not  standing  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  Galilean  crowd,  but  to  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem, 
and  further  that  the  metaphors  (naqoipiai)  here  employed  are  so 
much  extended  that  they  now  and  then  approach  the  form  of 
of  the  parable.  Besides,  the  metaphors  and  parables  are  both 
taken  from  the  natural  world  and  from  daily  life,  and  the  posi- 
tion that  the  Johannean  Christ  "  borrowed  absolutely  nothing 
from  the  natural  world  "  is,  to  say  the  least,  entirely  destitute 
of  proof.  Moreover,  the  pithy,  pregnant  and  apparently  para- 
doxical, which  here  frequently  characterize  his  words,  are  by 
no  means  wanting  also  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels.  Misunder- 
standing of  his  utterances,  which  here  also  gives  occasion  to 
further  explanation,  is  likewise  met  with  in  the  three  first  Gos- 
pels (see,  e.  g.,  Matt  16,  6.  7 ;  19,  10.  11 ;  comp.  22,  45).  The 
greater  uniformity  in  the  discourses  of  our  Lord  in  John  re- 
sults from  the  more  rigid  plan  on  which  the  Gospel  is  con- 
structed, in  consequence  of  which  the  writer  was  naturally  led 
to  a  more  limited  selection  from  the  rich  material  at  hand 
(comp.  20,  31 ;  21,  25).  In  part,  at  least,  these  discourses  are 
not  less  occasional  and  various  than  those  in  the  other  Gospels ; 

*  See  his  Examen  des  princip.  Quest,  etc.,  p.  48. 


110  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

and  that  the  Jewish  (or,  rather,  Israelitish)  character  is  by  no 
means  discarded  by  the  exalted  Speaker,  we  learn,  partly  from 
the  letter  (4,  22 ;  5,  45.  46 ;  7,  37.  38),  and  still  more  from  the 
spirit  and  tendency  of  his  never  to  be  forgotten  utterances. 

3.  In  regard  to  the  contents,  it  is  absolutely  without  proof 
that  the  idea  of  God  from  which  Jesus  proceeds  in  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  essentially  different  from  that  presented  by  Him  in 
the  Synoptical  writings.  In  botn  He  distinctly  represents  God 
to  his  disciples  as  His  and  their  Father,  and  recognizes  as  chil- 
dren of  God  those  only  who  morally  exhibit  his  image  and 
character  (Matt.  5,  9 ;  comp.  John  8,  42).  In  both  he  repre- 
sents this  God,  also,  as  having  a  fatherly  compassion  toward  the 
sinner  (John  3, 16 ;  comp.  Matt.  18,  10-14),  and  man,  as  unable 
to  save  himself,  but  yet  ever  capable  of  salvation  through 
higher  power.  In  both  He  promises  and  prepares  this  salvation 
in  a  kingdom  of  God,  which  although  designed  for  all,  comes 
first  to  Israel,  and  for  which,  in  the  midst  of  this  nation  espe- 
cially, preparation  is  carefully  made  through  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation.  The  relation,  also,  of  that  kingdom  to  the  king- 
dom of  darkness,  and  the  character  of  the  latter,  are  in  both  the 
same  (Luke  10,  18 ;  comp.  John  12,  31) ;  and,  finally,  our  Lord 
always  remains  like  himself  in  the  exhibition  which  he  makes 
of  the  way  to  become  a  member  of  his  kingdom  (comp.,  e.  g., 
Matt.  5,  6 ;  7,  21 ;  11,  28 ;  18,  3  with  John  6,  35 ;  7,  37 ;  13, 
14,  17). 

4.  A  comparison  of  what  is  testified  by  the  Synoptical  and 
Johannean  Christ  concerning  his  own  person  and  work  leads  to 
the  same  conclusion.  The  former  possesses,  also,  a  superhu- 
man character  and  dignity  (§11,  5),  while  the  latter  calls  and 
shows  himself  man  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word  (§  18,  3).  As 
such,  according  to  both  accounts,  He  manifests  higher  knowl- 
edge, but  no  unlimited  omniscience  (comp.  Mark  11,  13  with 
John  11,  14);  spotless  purity,  united,  however,  with  human 
susceptibility  to  temptation  (Matt.  16,  23 ;  comp.  John  6,  15 ; 
12,  28) ;  in  a  word,  Divine  majesty,  but  in  the  humble  form  of 
a  servant  (Luke  22,  27 ;  comp.  John  13,  14).  Coming  as  a 
teacher  (Matt.  23,  8 ;  comp.  John  18.  14),  he  preaches  in  Jeru- 
salem and  in  Galilee  one  and  the  same  Gospel,  and  appeals  to 
the  same  credentials  in  support  of  his  authority.  Both  here 


Difference  and  Agreement  111 

and  there  we  find  him  ascribing  to  his  miracles  a  very  essential 
and  yet  not  supreme  confirmation  of  his  Divine  mission,  and 
condemning  the  unbelief  which  rejects  him,  as  absolutely  inex- 
cusable (Matt.  11,  20-24;  comp.  John  7,  24).  Not  his  own 
honor,  but  that  of  the  Father  (Mark  5,  19 ;  comp.  John  7,  18) 
and  the  salvation  of  all  the  lost  (Luke  10,  19 ;  comp.  John  6, 
37)  is  the  chief  end  at  which  he  aims.  Living  and  teaching 
for  this,  for  this  also,  according  to  the  will  and  counsel  of  God 
(Matt.  26,  54 ;  comp.  John  10,  17.  18),  He  will  suffer  and  die. 
His  suffering  and  death  is,  on  the  one  side,  a  lot  to  which, 
although  not  without  deep  feeling,  He  obediently  submits 
(Matt.  26,  38 ;  comp.  John  12,  27.  28),  and  on  the  other,  an 
act  which,  with  the  highest  freedom,  He  performs  (John  14,  31 ; 
comp.  Matt.  26,  46).  In  regard  to  the  causes,  ends  and  results 
of  this  suffering  and  death,  the  Johannean  Christ  teaches  in 
substance  nothing  but  what  the  Synoptical  Christ  had  already 
declared  (§  14,  7 ;  comp.  §  20,  6).  The  little,  also,  that  he  says 
in  the  fourth  Gospel  concerning  his  resurrection,  cannot,  with- 
out great  violence,  be  explained  otherwise  than  as  referring  to 
a  bodily  rising  from  the  dead,  and  in  that,  as  well  as  in  the 
Synoptical  Gospels,  his  abiding  personal  relation  to  his  disci- 
ples, even  after  his  departure  from  earth,  is  most  explicitly 
promised  (§11,  5  ;  comp.  §  21,  8). 

5.  The  greatest  difference  appears  undoubtedly  in  the  sphere 
of  eschatology.  But  even  where  the  difference  is  at  once  man- 
ifest, the  relative  harmony  in  the  background  is  not  sought  for 
in  vain.  In  neither  account  is  it  denied  that  the  pious  live  and 
are  blessed  immediately  after  death  (Luke  16,  23  ;  20,  38  ;  comp. 
John  11,  25) ;  while  in  both,  a  bodily  resurrection  at  the  last 
day,  is  assumed  or  promised,  even  of  those,  who  are  already 
possessors,  here,  of  the  higher  life  (§  16,  5 ;  comp.  22.  3).  On 
the  mountain  in  Galilee  (Matt  7,  21-23 ;  comp.  25,  31  sqq.) 
and  at  the  feast  in  Jerusalem  (John  5,  24-29)  our  Lord  announ- 
ces himself  as  the  future  Judge,  exalted  above  every  creature, 
but  at  the  same  time  conscious  of  his  absolute  dependence  upon 
the  Father  (Matt.  24,  36 ;  comp.  John  14,  28).  According  to 
both  accounts,  he  promises  the  same  future  salvation  (Luke  12, 
37 ;  comp.  John  12,  26)  to  be  gained  by  each  of  his  disciples 
in  the  same  way  of  self-denial  and  suffering  (Matt  16,  25 ; 


112  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

comp.  John  12,  25).  In  neither  does  he  give  to  the  unconvert- 
ed sinner  a  prospect  either  of  final  annihilation  or  of  the  dimi- 
nution or  termination  of  the  future  punishment.  His  coming, 
in  the  one  account,  generally  but  not  exclusively  represented 
under  physical  imagery,  in  the  other  more  spiritually,  stands 
forth  as  the  glorious  consummation  of  all  things. 

6.  There  are  undoubtedly  particular  leading  thoughts  in  the 
teachings  of  our  Lord  found  sometimes  only  in  John  and  some- 
times exclusively  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels.  Could  it  be  other- 
wise, when  neither  of  the  Evangelists  aimed,  in  this  respect,  at 
systematic  unity  and  still  less  at  completeness  ?  Yet  the  addi- 
tions of  John  are  merely  the  supplement  and  crown  of  what 
the  other  Evangelists  had  penned ;  and  in  respect  to  what  he  has 
omitted,  it  must  never  be  forgotten  that  there  was  no  need  of 
repeating  what  he  might  presume  to  be  sufficiently  well  known 
from  their  writings.  Many  a  peculiarity  of  the  teachings  of 
our  Lord  in  the  Gospel  of  John  is  quite  satisfactorily  explained 
by  its  historical  connection.  When,  for  example,  He  calls  the 
law  of  love  "a  new  commandment"  (John  13,  34),  while  else- 
where it  is  represented  as  old  and  well  known  (Matt.  22,  39),  it 
is  because  our  Lord  in  the  first  instance  is  speaking  not  of  uni- 
versal love  to  our  neighbor,  but  of  Christian  brotherly  love, 
which  his  disciples,  in  imitating  his  example,  are  ever  to  exer- 
cise. If  Jesus  speaks  of  prayer  in  his  name  only  in  John  (16, 
23),  he  does  so  only  in  his  parting  discourse  on  the  last  evening 
of  his  life,  which  is  not  recorded  by  the  other  Evangelists.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  idea  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  stands 
here  almost  entirely  in  the  background  (comp.  however  John 
20,  23),  the  historical  connection,  in  which  our  Lord  speaks  con- 
cerning it  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  does  not  occur  in  John, 
although  the  exhibition  of  the  love  of  God  even  towards  the 
guilty  and  those  deserving  of  punishment,  is  here  made  with 
certainly  no  less  impressiveness.  Our  Lord  unquestionably 
speaks  at  greater  length  in  John  than  in  the  other  Gospels,  con- 
cerning the  promise  and  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  in 
both  accounts  he  promises  the  Holy  Spirit  to  his  disciples,  as 
well  before  as  after  his  death  (John  20,  22 ;  comp.  Luke  24, 
49),  and  the  help  which  they  are  encouraged  to  expect  bears  in 
both  fundamentally  the  same  character  (John  14 — 16 ;  comp. 


Agreement  ana  Difference.  113 

Matt.  10,  19.  20).  Thus  at  every  turn  is  manifest  anew  the 
truth  of  the  remark :  "  the  profound  discourses,  which  St.  John 
reports,  are  the  development  of  the  energetic  and  concise  words, 
which  the  three  first  Evangelists  took  by  preference "  (DE 
PRESSENSE).  Or,  in  the  language  of  another  critic,  whose  con- 
victions have  forced  him  to  abandon  the  Tubingen  school  to 
which  he  once  belonged,  "  the  record  of  the  discourses  of  Jesus 
in  the  three  first  Gospels  requires  to  be  filled  out  by  the  dis- 
courses in  John"  (A.  KITSCHL). 

7.  While  the  undeniable  difference  between  the  doctrine  of 
the  Synoptical  and  the  Johannean  Christ  is  neither  absolute  nor 
incapable  of  explanation,  it  is  for  more  than  one  reason  impor- 
tant. It  is  an  undesigned,  but  incontestable  proof  of  the  un- 
searchable riches  of  Christ  (Eph.  3,  8),  which  could  be  wholly 
exhausted  by  none  of  the  Evangelists.  It  confirms  moreover 
the  credibility  of  the  writers,  who  even  if  they  were  not  unac- 
quainted with  each  other's  productions,  worked  each  from  his 
own  point  of  view,  with  equal  independence  and  accuracy.  It 
places  in  our  hands,  finally,  the  key  to  the  phenomenon,  that 
from  the  simple  doctrine  of  Jesus,  with  all  its  depth,  such  a 
rich  variety  of  Apostolic  doctrines  could  proceed.  Because  the 
teaching  of  our  Lord  was  so  many-sided,  it  was  capable  of 
being  the  starting  point  of  more  than  one  announcement,  in 
which  now  one  and  then  another  side  of  the  Gospel  could  be 
made  prominent,  and  still  the  preacher  not  be  untrue  to  the 
spirit  or  the  aim  of  the  Master.  The  ground  before  us  is  pro- 
ductive enough  to  bear  various  plants  which  reach  different 
degrees  of  height,  but  obviously  belong  to  the  same  class  and 
bear  similar  fruits. 

Comp.  BORGER,  de  constanti  et  aequdbili  J.  0.  indole,  H.  C. 
1816;  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  "  Christology"  II.  bL  113-121,  "Life 
of  Jesus"  I.  bl.  147,  and  "  The  Gospel  of  John,"  bl.  57-112; 
DE  PRESSENS^,  Jesus  Christ,  l>is  time,  etc.  pp.  291-306;  DE 
KOUGEMONT,  "  Christ  and  his  witnesses"  Par.  1856,  I.  p.  137 
sqq. ;  GODET,  "  Commentary "  II.  p.  750-770 ;  BEISCHLAG,  in 
the  work  already  cited,  S.  65  ff.,  where  it  is  correctly  observed : 
"  All  the  principal  topics  of  the  discourses  in  John  occur  also 
in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  only  in  scattered  and  partially  lost 
traces.  As  certainly,  however,  as  Christ  must  have  exhibited 
8 


114:  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

them  with  unspeakably  more  richness  than  they  are  given  in 
the  Synoptical  Gospels,  so  certainly  in  this  respect  does  the 
comparison  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels  and  John  always  in  the 
end  confirm  anew  the  authenticity  of  the  latter." 

Questions  for  Consideration. — In  what  respects  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  Synoptical  Christ  illustrated  and  confirmed  by  that  of 
the  Johannean  ? — In  what  consists  the  difference  and  the  agree- 
ment between  the  naga^o^  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels  and  the 
nayoi/uia  in  John? — Is  the  appellation,  Son  of  man,  used  by 
Jesus  in  both,  in  the  same  sense  ? — How  is  it  to  be  accounted 
for,  that  our  Lord  in  the  fourth  Gospel  speaks  so  much  earlier 
than  in  the  three  first,  of  his  Messianic  dignity,  his  death  and 
his  resurrection  ? — On  what  points  is  He  silent  in  John,  on  which 
He  speaks  more  or  less  fully  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  and 
what  inference  may  be  drawn  from  this  ? — Criticism  of  the  dif- 
ferent views  and  explanations  (LANGE,  GODET)  of  the  peculiar- 
ity of  the  utterances  of  Jesus  which  are  found  only  in  John. — 
Exhibition  of  the  harmony  of  our  Lord's  declarations,  reported 
by  John  and  the  Synoptical  writers,  in  the  history  of  the  suf- 
ferings, death,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus. — Importance  of  the 
result  gained,  in  the  department  of  the  Christian  evidences. — 
The  careful  comparison  of  the  didactic  import  of  the  Synopti- 
cal and  Johannean  Gospels  steadily  demanded  from  the  Bibli- 
cal Theologian  of  the  present  day,  and  a  field  in  which  many  a 
weed  is  to  be  rooted  out,  but  also  much  precious  fruit  to  be 
gathered. 

§24 

Result. 

In  their  harmonious  diversity  the  teachings  of  our  Lord,  as 
recorded  by  the  four  Evangelists,  are  on  the  one  hand  the  ex- 
planation, extension  and  fulfillment  of  the  word  of  God,  spo- 
ken by  Moses  and  the  Prophets ;  on  the  other,  the  foundation 
and  the  point  of  departure  of  a  series  of  Apostolic  testimonies 
concerning  the  way  of  salvation,  which  in  turn  under  various 
forms,  contain,  interpret  and  strengthen  His. 


Agreement  and  Difference.  115 

1.  At  the  close  of  this  our  second  division,  we  naturally  look 
back  to  the  Old  Testament  foundations  laid  in  the  first     The 
impression  made  by  the  study  of  the  teachings  of  our  Lord, 
whether  we  listen  to  them  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels  or  in  John, 
can  hardly  be  better  expressed  than  in  a  reverential  Amen  to 
the  declaration  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount:  "I  am  not  come 
to  destroy  the  law,  or  the  prophets,  but  to  fulfill  "  (Matt.  5, 17). 
If  the  contrast  between  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament  is  un- 
deniable, the  connection  between  the  words  of  our  Lord  and 
those  of  Moses  is,  if  possible,  still  more  striking.     In  the  first 
place,  we  here  receive  an  explanation  of  many  a  mysterious 
word  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  great  significance  of  which  is 
not  to  be  denied  by  any  one  who  regards  the  Lord  in  the  light 
in  which,  according  to  all  the  Evangelists,  he  has  so  often  pre- 
sented himself.     In  the  next  place,  we  find  the  instructions  of 
earlier  times  on  the  most  important  points  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice, so  far  amplified  and  filled  out,  that  to  many  questions  there 
merely  propounded,  the  most  satisfactory  answer  is  here  given. 
And  finally,  we  meet,  as  in  the  deeds  and  the  experiences  of 
Jesus,  so  also  in  his  words,  a  fulfillment  of  the  earlier  promises 
and  expectations,  which  does  not  possibly  admit  of  explana- 
tion from  a  purely  natural  and  accidental  course  of  events. 
Thus  the  words  of  THE  WORD,  in  some  respects,  never  before 
heard,  are  in  another  sense  merely  a  loud  echo  of  the  strongest 
prophetic   utterances,  and  the   Old   Testament   vindicates   its 
honorable  title  of  "a  great  prophecy — a  type  of  Him,  who  was 
to  come  and  has  come"  (DE  WETTE). 

2.  Because  the  teachings  of  our  Lord  constitute  a  vital  unity, 
they  are  characterized  by  anything  rather  than  a  dead  uniform- 
ity.    It  might  therefore  be  expected  a  priori  that  the  words  of 
the  Apostles  would  be  something  more  than  a  mechanical  repe- 
tition of  his  testimony,  and  a  posteriori  it  will  appear  that  we 
have  here  before  our  eyes  nothing  less  than  a  new  (but  not  for 
eign)  world  of  thought.     "In  the  didactic  discourses  of  Jesus, 
we  have  the  pregnant  germ  and  kernel,  the  root,  the  simple 
but  firm  foundation  ;  in  the  Apostolic  teaching,  as  found  in  the 
other  New  Testament  writings,  we  have  the  buds  and  branches, 
the  plants  sprung  from  the  germ  ;  we  have  the  completed  build- 
ing, which  rests  upon  that  simple  but  firm  foundation.     The 


116  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

Apostolic  doctrine  is  vital  and  energetic ;  the  discourses  of  our 
Lord  in  the  Grospel  original,  pregnant,  clearly  exhibit  the 
stamp  of  their  primitive  form ;  the  Apostolic  doctrine  is  suited 
as  much  to  its  more  fully  developed  relations,  as  the  didactic 
discourses  of  our  Lord  corresponding  to  the  relations  of  his 
personal  life"  (SCHMID).  Our  investigation  from  this  point 
will  be  a  steady  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  above  remark. 

Comp.  VAN  OoSTERZEE,  "  Christology  "  I.  33,  sqq.  and  II.  bl. 
130,  sqq.;  LTJTTERBECK,  II  S.  121  ff. ;  SCHMID,  II.  S.  7; 
BAUB,  S.  122-126. 

Questions  for  Consideration. — How  far  are  the  declarations  of 
Jesus  himself  confirmed  by  the  results  of  our  investigation  con- 
cerning his  relation  to  the  Old  Testament? — Jesus  as  an  ex- 
pounder of  the  words  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets. — The  inter- 
pretation of  the  Scriptures  by  Jesus,  and  later  hermeneutics. — 
What  is  there  properly  new  in  the  Gospel  of  the  kingdom  in 
the  Synoptical  writers  and  in  the  testimony  of  the  Johannean 
Christ  concerning  himself? — What  in  respect  to  the  doctrine 
concerning  faith  ? — What  in  that  concerning  morals  and  prac- 
tice ? — Does  the  teaching  of  Jesus  stand  in  one  and  the  same 
relation  to  that  of  all  the  Apostles  and  their  associates  ? — Trans- 
ition to  the  treatment  of  the  Theology  of  the  Apostles. 


PART   III. 

THE  THEOLOGY   OF   THE   APOSTLES. 

§25. 
General  Survey. 

The  study  of  the  Theology  of  the  Apostles  extends,  so  far 
as  we  can  speak  of  it,  to  the  doctrinal  system  of  all  those  men 
whose  testimony  concerning  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  recorded 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  is  to  us,  on  historical  grounds,  of 
inexpressible  value.  In  the  study  of  this  testimony,  likewise, 
we  must  not  overlook  either  the  undeniable  diversity  or  the 
higher  unity  of  the  different  witnesses,  and  in  conducting  the 
investigation  we  must  observe  a  methodical  order,  and  ascend 
from  the  simplest  to  the  more  composite  and  developed  doc- 
trines. 

1.  In  the  strict  sense  of  the  word  the  name  of  Apostles  can 
be  given  only  to  the  twelve,  who  were  called  by  the  Lord  him- 
self to  the  Apostolate  (Luke  6,  13)  and  to  whom,  on  the  death 
of  Judas,  Matthias  was  added  (Acts  1,  26).     Yet  along  with 
these  Paul  also  claims  this  title  of  honor  (Gal.  1,  1),  which  is 
given,  moreover,  to  the  associates  and  friends  of  our  Lord's 
first  witnesses  (Acts  14,  14;  Gal.  1,  19)  and  once  even  to  Jesus 
himself  (Heb.  3,  1).     We  follow  this  example  the  more  readily 
since  the  larger  number  of  the  Apostles  properly  so-called 
have  left  us  nothing  in  writing.     We  investigate  here,  there- 
fore, the  doctrinal  teachings  of  all  the  writers  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, and  only  of  these.     Those  of  a  spirit  akin  to  theirs, 
whose  writings  are  not  received  into  the  sacred  Canon,  are  not 
included  therefore  in  the  sphere  of  our  inquiry. 

2.  The  distinction  between  the  Theology  of  Jesus  Christ  and 
that  of  the  Apostles  is  the  fruit  of  a  better  conception  of  the 


118  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

inspiration  of  the  sacred  writers.  On  the  theory  of  a  mechan- 
ical inspiration,  it  was  quite  a  matter  of  indifference,  whether 
a  passage  of  Scripture  occurred  in  the  Old  or  the  New  Testa- 
ment or  whether  it  proceeded  from  the  Lord  himself  or  from 
one  of  his  witnesses :  it  was  enough  that  it  stood  in  the  Bible. 
A  more  historical  view  of  the  Scriptures  has  prepared  the  way 
for  a  juster  distinction,  and  one  unquestionably  in  the  spirit  of 
our  Lord  of  and  his  Apostles. 

3.  The   question   concerning  the  binding  authority  of  the 
Apostolic  testimony  in  regard  to  Christian  faith  and  life  be- 
longs not  to  the  region  of  historical  but  of  systematic  Theology. 
But  even  on  the  ground  of  the  former,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the 
word  of  witnesses  like  these,  who  stood  nearest  of  all  to  Christ, 
cannot  be  too  closely  studied  (comp.  John  19,  35 ;  Acts  1,  21 ; 
2  Pet.  1,  16).     It  may  be  admitted  that  some  of  the  Apostles 
were  not,  by  nature,  highly  endowed  or  extraordinary  men. 
But  the  priority  of  their  testimony,  reflecting,  as  it  does,  the 
first  impression  made  upon  receptive  minds,  insures  to  them  a 
position  entirely  peculiar;   and   certainly  we  do  injustice  to 
their  writings,  if  we  regard  them  as  only  partially  successful 
attempts  to  express  Christian  truths  as  well  as  they  could,  but 
presently  giving  place  to  other  and  in  part  better  statements 
and  additions  (REUSS).     The  stream  is  certainly  purest  close  to 
the  source  and  when  the  question  is  in  respect  to  the  witnesses 
of  historical  and  religious  facts,  the  illiterate  man  even,  who 
has  fairly  received  the  first  impression,  takes  precedence  of  the 
more  cultivated,  who  subsequently  philosophizes,  with  ability, 
perhaps,  but — at  the  distance  of  centuries.     Still  the  Apostolic 
testimony  concerning  Christ  cannot  be  unconditionally  placed 
on  the  same  line  with  his  own.     There  is  here  a  difference 
similar  to  that  between  the  entire  Messianic   and  Apostolic 
period.     Their  words  must  be  tested  by  that  of  the  Master, 
not  vice  versa.     But  although  to  this  degree  below  his,  their 
teachings  stand  far  above  those  of  subsequent  writers.     What 
a  difference  between  the  Christian  literature  of  even  the  second 
century  and  that  of  the  first ! 

4.  The  source,  from  which  the  knowledge  of  the  theology  of 
the  Apostles  is  drawn,  is  the  Scripture  of  the  New  Testament 
"  What  further  we  know  from  other  reports  can  in  any  case  be 


The  Theology  of  the  Apostles.  119 

introduced  only  subordinately  "  (MESSNER).  In  regard  to  the 
relation  in  which  our  investigation  stands  to  the  New  Testament 
Introduction,  we  have  already  spoken  (§  1,  4).  The  Biblical 
theologian  who  defends  the  supra-naturalistic  view  is  not  called 
to  consider  doubts  in  respect  to  the  trustworthiness  of  the  New 
Testament  records  until  they  give  evidence  of  a  better  origin 
than  the  partisanship  of  a  narrow  naturalistic  criticism.  On 
the  other  hand  he  must  not  hold  back  the  light  which  the  inves- 
tigation of  the  didactic  contents  of  the  New  Testament  books 
may  help  to  shed  upon  their  genuineness. 

5.  The  question,  how  far  it  is  possible  to  regard  the  theology 
of  the  Apostles,  drawn  from  these  sources,  as  one  whole,  cannot 
be  answered  without  some  preliminary  remarks.  It  is  known 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles  is  transmitted  to  us  in  a  num- 
ber of  types  of  doctrine  (ivnot  didux^s)  but  never  in  a  strictly 
connected  system.  When  we  speak  of  theology,  therefore,  we 
mean  only  "  the  sum  of  single  doctrinal  statements  united  in  a 
congruous  and  systematic  whole  "  (FROMMANN).  Such  a  theol- 
ogy may  be  constructed  with  the  greater  ease,  the  larger  the 
number  of  statements  in  the  writings  of  an  Apostle  which 
express  his  doctrinal  views.  No  one  would  think,  for  example, 
of  placing  on  the  same  level,  in  this  respect,  the  writings  of 
James  or  Jude  with  those  of  Paul.  The  unity,  moreover,  of 
the  Apostolic  doctrine  is  anything  but  mere  uniformity,  and  it 
must  be  reckoned  among  the  merits  of  the  modern  Supranatu- 
ralism  that  it  has  had  an  eye  and  heart  for  the  rich  variegation 
of  thoughts  found  in  the  different  New  Testament  writers. 
But  still  this  variegation  does  not  justify  the  position  "that  in 
fact  there  was  very  little  unity  of  doctrinal  belief  among  the 
Apostles  "  (PiERSON),  as  if  they  furnish  us  with  various  limbs 
but  no  body, — mere  loose  stones,  too  various  in  size  and  form 
for  one  building.  Nothing,  certainly,  is  easier  than  to  set  a 
number  of  isolated  Apostolic  declarations  in  apparent  opposition 
to  each  other,  and  then  to  speak  of  the  conflicting  views  of  the 
New  Testament  writers.*  But  such  an  anatomical  criticism 
which  shows  how  to  separate,  but  not  how  to  combine,  and  in 
its  exclusive  attention  to  every  particular  tree,  fails  to  take  into 

*  As  is  done,  for  instance,  by  PIEBSON,  Oorsprong  der  mod  Rigting,  1862,  pp. 
144, 145. 


120  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

account  the  whole  forest,  has  shown  itself  in  numerous  instances 
as  weak  as  it  is  one-sided ;  and  the  motto,  divide  et  impera,  may 
more  fitly  be  inscribed  upon  the  banner  of  the  opponents  of 
Christianity  than  it  can  be  over  the  school  of  the  theology  of 
faith.  What  might  a  priori  be  expected,  admits  of  being  ex- 
egetically  and  historically  justified :  there  is  among  the  Apos- 
tolic writers  a  diversity  of  gifts,  but  a  unity  of  spirit;  they 
differ  in  respect  to  their  starting  point,  method  and  depth,  but 
agree  in  their  belief,  principles  and  expectations  ;  their  coloring 
is  different,  but  not  the  original  light ;  they  vary  in  tone,  but 
the  harmony  is  rather  improved  than  injured  thereby.  The 
Jewish-Christian  theology  of  one  author  does  not  stand  in  irre- 
concilable antagonism  to  that  of  another  with  a  more  Hellen- 
istic coloring,  and  the  progress  of  investigation  continually 
shows  harmony  to  exist  even  where  it  was  once  denied  or  per- 
haps wholly  overlooked.  The  lines  of  Gothe  are  more  true 
than  he  himself  was  aware  of : — 

"  Vom  Himmel  sterbend  Jesus  bracht 
Des  Evangeliums  ewige  Schrift, 
Den  Jiingeni  las  er  sie  Tag  und  Nacht; 
Bin  gottlich  Wort,  es  wirkt  und  trifft. 

Er  stieg  zuriick,  nahm's  wieder  mit, 
Sie  aber  batten's  gut  gefuhlt, 
Und  Jeder  schrieb  so  Schritt  fur  Scbritt, 
Wie  er's  in  seinem  Sinn  behielt. 

Yerschieden :  Es  hat  nichts  zu  bedeuten. 
Sie  batten  nicht  gleiche  Fahigkeiten ; 
Doob  damit  konnen  sicb  die  Christen 
Bis  zu  dem  jiingsten  Tage  fristen." 

6.  The  main  division  of  our  subject  has  been  already  in- 
dicated (§  3,  2)  and  must  be  justified  by  the  entire  progress  of 
the  investigation.  In  respect  to  its  execution,  what  we  have  to 
do  is  neither  to  criticise  nor  to  defend,  but  simply  to  give  a 
correct  objective  exhibition  of  the  doctrinal  teachings  of  the 
Apostolic  writers.  This,  however,  must  be  done  in  the  spirit 
of  the  writers  themselves,  and  with  careful  attention  to  the 
peculiarity,  leading  thought  and  particular  method  of  each. 
Instead,  therefore,  of  placing  the  doctrinal  teachings  of  the 
several  writers  in  the  same  frame  (e.  g.,  Theology,  Anthropol- 
ogy, Christology,  Eschatology),  the  classification  and  analysis 


The  Theology  of  the  Apostles.  121 

of  the  ideas  of  Paul  for  instance  must  proceed  quite  differently 
from  those  of  John  and  Peter.  It  is  impossible  to  understand  a 
witness  for  the  truth,  unless  we  distinctly  recognize  his  point 
of  view  and  fundamental  conception.  It  is  also  important  to 
notice,  in  respect  to  each  particular  doctrine,  the  genetic  and 
psychological  development  of  the  thoughts  of  the  writers, 
and  thus  also,  so  far  as  is  necessary  and  possible,  the  chrono- 
logical succession  of  his  writings.  Here,  likewise,  a  sharp  dis- 
tinction between  the  dogmatic  and  ethical  side  of  their  teach- 
ings would  be  needless  and  injurious.  Every  doctrine,  there- 
fore, must  first  be  considered  in  its  several  parts  and  as  a  whole, 
before  we  can  promise  ourselves  the  results  we  desire  from  the 
comparison  of  all. 

7.  In  regard  to  the  helps  for  this  part  of  our  inquiry  and  the 
spirit  in  which  it  should  be  prosecuted,  we  may  refer  to  what 
has  already  been  said  (§2,  3 ;  3,  3).  It  will  not  be  superfluous, 
however,  to  repeat  the  remark,  that  no  one  who  studies  the 
doctrine  of  the  Apostles  from  a  point  of  view  in  irreconcilable 
opposition  to  their  own,  can  either  understand  or  appreciate 
their  testimony.  The  writings  of  the  Apostles  can  be  under- 
stood only  in  the  light  of  the  same  Spirit,  by  whom  they  were 
originally  inspired. 

Comp.  on  the  Theology  of  the  Apostles  in  general,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  works  already  mentioned  (§  2,  3),  MATTHAEI,  "  The 
Religious  Faith  of  the  Apostles  of  Jesus,  in  its  Contents,  Origin, 
and  Value,"  2  Bde.  Gott.,  1826;  DE  PRESSENSE,  History  of 
the  three  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  Church :  also,  by  the  same 
author,  "  The  Critical  School  and  the  Apostles"  Paris,  1866, 
(against  Kenan);  and  especially  BONIFAS,  "Essay  on  the  Unity 
of  the  Teachings  of  the  Apostles,"  Paris,  1866.  On  the  unity  of 
the  Apostolic  teachings,  SCHLEIERMACHER,  "  Hermeneutics " 
(Lucke's  ed.),  S.  82 ;  SCHAFF,  History  of  the  Ancient  Church, 
New  York,  I.  pp.  81-84 

Questions  for  consideration.  —  Origin,  meaning  and  various 
uses  of  the  word,  Apostle. — Meaning  of  Luke  10,  16,  comp. 
John  20,  21. — What  may  be  gathered  from  the  literature  of 
the  post-Apostolic  age  in  regard  to  the  teaching  of  the  Apos- 
tles?— Which  Apostolic  doctrinal  system  appears,  even  on  a 
9 


122  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

preliminary  view,  to  be  the  deepest,  fullest  and  richest  ? — What 
is  necessary  in  order  to  penetrate  as  deeply  as  possible  into  an 
Apostolic  doctrinal  system  ? — Character  of  the  Apostolic  teach- 
ing compared  with  the  most  ancient  patristic  literature. 


CHAPTEK  I. 

THE  PETKINE  THEOLOGY. 

§26. 
Preliminary  Survey. 

The  priority  of  the  treatment  of  the  Petrine  theology  is 
justified  both  by  the  special  place  which  this  Apostle  occupies 
in  the  history  of  the  first  century  of  Christianity  and  by  the 
peculiar  character  of  his  doctrinal  teaching  itself.  Itself  drawn 
from  the  purest  sources,  it  is  best  learned  from  the  first  general 
epistle  of  Peter,  compared  with  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
although  one  or  two  of  the  epistles  of  Paul  furnish  important 
hints  in  regard  to  it  The  second  epistle  of  Peter,  in  this  in- 
quiry, is  neither  to  be  silently  passed  by,  nor  to  be  placed 
unconditionally  on  a  level  with  the  first,  but  must  be  separately 
studied  and  compared.  The  entire  doctrinal  teachings  of  this 
Apostle  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  exhibit  the  spectacle 
of  a  harmonious  development  and  the  marks  of  a  strongly  ex- 
pressed, but  sanctified  individuality. 

1.  It  is  not  arbitrary  to  begin  our  inquiry  with  the  Petrine 
Theology.  In  ascending  (§  25)  from  the  most  simple  to  the 
more  composite  and  developed  forms  of  doctrinal  statement, 
we  can  in  no  case  commence  with  Paul  or  John.  Neither  can 
we  assign  the  first  place  to  James  (SCHMID),  because  his  title  to 
the  name  of  Apostle,  strictly  so  called,  is  more  than  doubtful, 
and  his  epistle  bears  an  almost  exclusively  practical  character. 


The  Petrine  Theology.  123 

Moreover  Peter,  as  compared  with  James,  much  more  strongly 
influenced  the  entire  spirit  of  the  Apostolic  age.  It  was  Peter 
who  exerted  an  influence  upon  the  earliest  statement  of  the 
gospel,  which  is  wholly  unrecognized  in  the  late  romantic  re- 
construction of  the  history  of  the  Apostles  (RENAN).  Even 
Paul  subsequently  built  only  upon  the  foundation  laid  by 
Cephas  in  the  Jewish  and  Grentile  world.  If  Rome  has  exalted 
him  in  a  one-sided  manner,  it  is  ultra-Protestant  injustice  to 
overlook  the  special  importance  of  his  person  and  writings. 
In  unison  with  Matthew,  Mark,  James  and  Jude  he  has  fur- 
nished us  with  the  purest  expression  of  the  original  faith  of  the 
churches  in  Palestine. 

2.  The  source  from  which  the  Apostolic  writers  drew  their 
testimony  in  regard  to  the  gospel  was  the  same  in  all,  but  in 
each  of  them  more  or  less  modified.     All  were  enlightened  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  which  led  them  into  the  sanctuary  of  truth, 
but  all  did  not  reach  the  same  height  of  development  and  of 
spiritual  life.     Guided  by  this  Spirit,  Peter  spoke  distinctly  as 
an  eye-witness  of  the  works  and  sufferings  of  the  Lord  (Acts 
5,  32 ;  1  Pet.  5,  1).     At  the  same  time  he  quoted  more  than 
some  others  from  the  Old  Testament,  which,  after  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  he  evidently  understood   better  than  ever  before. 
He  also  appeals  to  special  revelation  made  to  himself  (Acts  10, 
28  ;  comp.  2  Pet  1,  14).     Above  all,  the  ripe  experience  of  his 
Christian  life  gives  to  his  testimony  a  peculiar  character  and  an 
indisputable  value. 

3.  On  a  superficial  view  it  might  seem  that,  among  the  orig- 
inal documents  from  which  our  knowledge  of  the  doctrinal 
teachings  of  Peter  is  to  be  drawn,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  must 
occupy  the  highest  place.     But  even  with  the  fullest  recognition 
of  the  credibility  of  the  latter,  it  is  self-evident  that  a  writing 
of  the  Apostle  himself  is  more  important  for  the  end  which 
we  have  in  view  than  two  or  three  of  his  discourses  recorded 
by  another  after  the  lapse  of  years.     On  this  ground  we  give 
the  precedence  among  the  sources  from  which  we  can  learn  his 
Theology,  to  the  first  epistle  of  Peter,  since  its  genuineness  is 
beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  and  since,  moreover,  it  exhibits 
such  an  entirely  subjective  character. — By  the  side  of  this,  how- 
ever, we  place  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  follow  this  authority 


124  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

with  the  greater  confidence  the  more  we  observe,  as  we  con- 
stantly do,  that  the  Peter  whom  we  here  meet  agrees  in  so 
many  particulars  with  the  author  of  the  first  epistle  which 
bears  his  name.  Compare  especially  Acts  2,  14-38 ;  3,  12-26  ; 
4,  9-12;  5,  29-32;  10,  34-43;  11,  4-17;  12,  11;  15,  7-11. 
The  Apostle  Paul  likewise  has  furnished  important  help  towards 
a  just  knowledge  of  the  direction  and  views  of  Peter.  Not  to 
speak  of  the  similarity  between  several  Pauline  and  Petrine 
propositions  (exaggerated  by  the  Tubingen  school)  we  have  only 
to  think  of  1  Cor.  1,  12 ;  9,  5 ;  15,  5  and  of  the  statement  in 
Gal.  2,  7-9  that  Peter  was  an  Apostle  of  the  circumcision,  one 
of  the  pillars  of  the  Church,  etc. 

In  respect  to  the  second  epistle,  the  modest  assertion  (LoMAN) 
"that  no  scholar  can  now  be  found  who  ventures  to  defend  the 
genuineness  of  this  epistle,"  is  only  an  exposure  of  the  pecul- 
iarity of  a  certain  school  which  restricts  the  recognized  "  free- 
dom of  speech  "  to  its  own  members.  Various  voices  have  been 
raised  in  the  present  century  in  vindication  of  its  early  contested 
genuineness.  But  even  those  who  agree  with  these  defenders 
are  willing  to  admit  that  the  difficulties  brought  forward  in 
respect  to  this  epistle  are  by  no  means  imaginary.  As  the  case 
now  stands,  it  is  neither  advisable  to  pass  it  by  in  silence,  nor 
without  reservation,  to  place  it  on  the  same  level  with  the  first. 
If  the  former  course  betrays  prejudice,  the  latter  is  unscientific  ; 
to  exclude  it  would  be  premature,  but  to  make  a  distinction  is 
a  duty.  The  difficulties  in  respect  to  this  epistle,  in  their 
whole  extent,  must  be  left  to  the  science  of  Introduction ;  the 
Theology  of  the  New  Testament  has  fulfilled  its  task  whenever 
it  has  developed  the  theology  of  this  epistle  and  compared  it,  in 
every  point,  with  that  of  the  first. 

4.  The  Petrine  Theology,  as  gathered  from  these  different 
sources,  exhibits  the  charming  spectacle  of  a  harmonious  devel- 
opment. Even  to  the  Apostles  of  the  Lord  and  especially  to 
our  Apostle,  life  was  constant  progress.  During  a  period  of 
about  thirty  years  the  expression  of  the  religious  iaith  of  Peter 
became  constantly  fuller,  stronger  and  clearer.  Never  do  we 
find  him  contradicting  himself  and  needing  to  make  a  retraction, 
but  everywhere  making  progress,  which  reminds  us  of  the 
passage  in  Prov.  4,  18.  19.  In  Christology,  for  instance,  from 


The  Petrine  Theology.  125 

Acts  2,  22  to  2  Pet.  3, 18 — assuming  the  genuineness  of  the  latter 
epistle — there  is  a  glorious  climax.  The  facts  of  the  gospel, 
presented  with  emphasis  in  his  earliest  discourses,  are  also 
occasionally  stated  in  a  doctrinal  form  in  all  their  force  in  his 
first  epistle.  Exhortations  made  by  him  in  the  beginning,  we 
find  him  repeating  towards  the  end,  not  in  a  feebler  but  in  a 
stronger  tone.  Throughout,  the  literal  fulfillment  of  the  promise 
of  the  Lord,  John  16,  13,  is  evident,  while  the  comparison  of  the 
Apostle's  testimony  with  itself  at  various  periods  in  his  life  is, 
moreover,  an  incidental  argument  in  favor  ol  the  credibility  of 
his  declarations. 

5.  No  less  manifest  are  the  traces  of  a  strongly  expressed  but 
sanctified  individuality  in  the  doctrinal  teachings  of  this  Apostle. 
In  the  Gospel  History  he  stands,  as  is  well  known,  prominently 
in  the  foreground,  and  has  a  mental  physiognomy  not  easily  to 
be  confounded  with  that  of  any  other.     Peter  is  the  impulsive 
disciple,  the  man  of  feeling,  whose  thinking  is  not  in  abstract 
forms,  but  who  prefers  to  deal  with  the  concrete,  and  uniformly 
lives  "  in  the  sphere  of  the  immediate."     Of  such  a  man  it  is 
not  to  be  expected  that  he  will  write  much,  argue  at  Jength,  or 
exhibit  all  sides  of  the  same  idea.     He  will  more  easily  move  in 
a  circle  of  historical  than  of  speculative  ideas,  follow  others 
without  difficulty  in  the  order  and  form  of  thought,  and  in  some 
respects  be  inferior  to  more  distinguished  associates.     We  actu- 
ally find  all  this  to  a  certain  degree  in  the  discourses  and  epistles 
of  Peter ;  even  after  his  conversion,  he  is  one  of  those  "  unlearned 
and  ignorant  men  "  (Acts  4,  13)  by  whom  the  form  of  the  moral 
world  has  been  changed.     His  testimony  is  exactly  what  we 
should  expect  from  Simon  Peter  from  what  *ve  know  of  his  his- 
tory.    But  this  sharply-cut  individuality  is  aglow  with  the  fire 
of  a  zeal  and  a  love  which  alone  could  enable  him  thus  to  testify. 

6.  We  become  somewhat  further  acquainted  with  this  indi- 
viduality through  the  important  address,  with  which  Peter, 
before  the  day  of  Pentecost,  but  yet  initially  moved  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  (John  20,  22)  introduced  the  election  of  Matthias 
(Acts  1,  15-22).     He  at  once  exhibits  the  consciousness  of  his 
calling,  in  common  with  all  the  Apostles,  to  be  a  witness  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  especially  of  his  resurrection  (vs.  22),     In  this 
brief  address  he  repeatedly  appeals  to  the  prophetic  Scriptures 


126  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

(vv.  16.  20),  and  thus  shows  also  that  he  takes  a  purely  Israel  - 
itish  point  of  view.  Finally,  he  is  the  man  who,  as  early  as 
possible,  surveys  and  cares  for  the  future  (vs.  22),  as  if  from  the 
first  he  would  vindicate  his  right  to  the  honorable  title  of  the 
Apostle  of  hope.  As  the  principal  thought  of  a  symphony  is 
intimated  in  its  overture,  so  in  these  traits  of  the  Apostle  we 
learn  in  advance  how  he  will  exhibit  himself  in  his  subsequent 
speaking  and  writing.  Simon  Peter  comes  before  us  success- 
ively as  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ ;  as  an  Apostle  of  the  cir- 
cumcision ;  as  the  Apostle  of  hope. 

Comp.  on  the  personality  of  Peter  and  his  Theology  in  gen- 
eral, an  article  by  LANGE  in  HERZOG'S  Real-Encyc. ;  the  com- 
mentaries of  HUTHER  (in  Meyer),  WIESINGER  (in  Olshausen), 
BESSER,  FRONMULLER  (in  Lange),  on  the  epistles  of  Peter ;  but 
especially  WEISS,  "  The  Petrine  Theology."  Berl.  1855,  and  the 
literature  there  given,  and  also  KOCH,  de  Petri  theologia,  per  di- 
versos  vitce  quam  egit  periodos,  sensim  explicata.  L.  B.  1854. — On 
the  first  epistle  more  particularly,  YAN  TEUTEM,  "  Survey  of  the 
first  epistle  of  Peter"  Ley  den,  1861. — On  the  genuineness  of  the 
second,  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  "  Christology  of  the  New  Testament" 
bl.  162-176,  and  WEISS,  "On  the  Petrine  question"  in  the 
Stud.  u.  Krit,  1865  and  1866,  who  inclines  strongly  in  its  favor. 

Questions  for  consideration. — The  personality  and  character  of 
Peter  as  they  are  known  to  us  aside  from  his  own  words  and 
writings.' — The  importance  of  his  work  in  the  doctrinal  devel- 
opment of  the  Apostolic  age. — Contents  and  value  of  later 
accounts  concerning  his  doctrine  (the  Clementines). — The  true 
idea  of  development  in  its  application  to  the  Apostolic  theology. 
—How  far  can  the  personality  of  Peter  be  regarded  as  a  source 
of  his  doctrine? — Is  the  proposal  of  Peter,  Acts  1,  16-22,  to  be 
condemned,  excused,  or  commended  ? 

§27. 
Peter,  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ 

As  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  Peter,  with  increasing  clear- 
ness, bears  testimony  in  speech  and  by  writing,  to  the  unparal- 
leled dignity  and  greatness  of  the  Lord.  The  great  facts  of  his 


Peter,  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ.  127 

earthly  and  heavenly  life  he  places  emphatically  in  the  fore- 
ground ;  even  those  which  in  the  discourses  and  writings  of  the 
other  Apostles  are  not  at  all  or  scarcely  mentioned.  The 
doctrinal  statement  and  practical  application  of  these  facts  he 
unites  also  to  an  increasing  degree  with  their  historical 
exhibition. 

1.  In  the  treatment  of  the  Petrine  theology  it  is  most  con- 
venient to  start  from  what  Peter  has  in  common  with  all  the 
Apostles,  and  from  this  to  proceed  to  what  is  peculiar  to  him. 
Like  all  the  others  he  is  a  witness  (1*6$™$)  of  Christ,  although  he 
is  the  only  one  who  calls  himself  so  (1  Pet.  5,  1),  and  it  may  be 
observed  that  the  text  of  the  testimony  which  he  bears  as  such 
is  to  be  found  in  his  own  words,  Acts  4,  12.     But  the  appear- 
ance of  Christ,  infinitely  glorious  and  sublime,  is  not  viewed  by 
all  of  them  from  the  same  point.     Of  Peter  it  can  very  distinctly 
be  said  that  he  lays  special  emphasis  upon  its  historical  character. 
Without  entering  into  deep  abstract  considerations  in  regard  to 
the  nature  of  the  Lord,  he  exhibits  His  person  at  once  in  the 
light  of  history,  and  makes  Him,  so  to  speak,  live  on  in  his 
announcement. 

2.  Already  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  he  commences  with  the 
exhibition  of  Jesus  as  the  Nazarene  living  among  his  contem- 
poraries, a  man  approved  (proved)  of  God  himself,  by  mighty 
works  and  miracles  universally  known  (Acts  2,  22).     He  thus 
commences  by  placing  him  upon  a  level  with  the  most  eminent 
messengers  of  God,  but  only  to  exalt  Him  directly  above  them 
all  as  Him  whom  God  has  made  both  Lord  and  especially  Christ 
(vs.  36).     The  great  evidence  of  this  position  is  found  in  his 
resurrection  and  in  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  while  his 
death  on  the  cross  is  by  no  means  passed  over  in  silence,  but  is 
charged  upon  the  Jews  as  a  crime.     By  reason  of  this  his  Mes- 
sianic dignity,  the  historical  fact  of  our  Lord's  descent  from 
David  has  for  Peter  special  significance  (2,  33).     As  promised  to 
the  fathers,  He  is  called  God's  holy  one  (2,  27),  the  prophet  (3, 
22),  God's  holy  child  Jesus  (mrfc,  3,  13.  26 ;  4,  27) ;  a  name  not 
synonymous  indeed  with  the  more  usual  term,  Son  (i5t<5?)  of  God, 
which  does  not  occur  in  Peter,  but  yet  far  above  the  title  of 
servant  (tfouAo?),  which  the  Apostles  are  accustomed  to  give  to 


128  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

themselves,  and  borrowed  from  the  prophetic  representation  of 
the  perfect  "  servant  of  Jehovah." 

Along  with  this  theocratic  dignity,  Peter  strongly  exhibits 
the  moral  greatness  and  glory  of  the  Lord.  Christ  is  to  him 
the  Holy  and  Righteous  One  (Acts  3,  13.  14),  of  whose  murder 
the  whole  nation  is  guilty.  This  is  the  impression  made  by  the 
whole  appearance  of  Christ  upon  the  man,  who  once,  with  the 
confession  of  his  own  impurity,  fell  down  at  his  feet  (Luke  5,  8). 
Particularly  in  view  of  the  sufferings  of  the  Lord  had  he  gazed 
with  wonder  upon  his  perfect  sinlessness  (1  Pet.  1 , 19  ;  2,  22.  23), 
as  manifested  especially  in  his  self-control  and  untiring  gentle- 
ness. Hence,  also,  it  was  that  he  exhibits  not  merely  this  suffer- 
ing, as  do  all  the  others,  as  atoning,  but  also  very  expressly  as 
an  example  (2,  21). 

Nothing,  however,  is  farther  from  the  thought  of  the  Apostle 
than  that  the  Lord  was  only  the  best  and  greatest  of  men.  In 
the  historical  appearance  of  Christ  he  shows  us  the  marks  of 
superhuman  greatness.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  even,  it  was 
declared  (Acts  2,  33),  with  evident  reference  to  the  words  of 
Jesus  himself,  that  He  had  "received  of  the  Father"  the 
promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  although  his  relation  to  the 
Father  was  not  for  the  moment  more  particularly  explained,  it 
was  set  prominently  forth  in  the  first  sermon  to  the  Gentiles, 
that  God  was  with  Him  in  an  entirely  special  sense.  Still  more 
strongly  does  this  higher  Christological  element  come  out  in  the 
first  epistle.  The  trinitarian  distinction  in  1  Pet.  1,  2  would 
have  been  as  inappropriate  as  the  joyful  announcement  of  God 
as  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (vs.  3),  if  the  Lord  in 
the  Apostle's  view  was  a  mere  man  clothed  with  Messianic 
glory.  The  mention,  also,  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  as  previously 
present  in  the  prophets  (1,  11),  would  at  least  sound  strange,  if 
Peter  had  only  wished  to  remark  that  the  Spirit  which  animated 
the  prophets  was  the  same  with  which  Christ  was  afterwards 
filled.  The  expression  assumes  rather  an  existence  and  a  work 
in  earlier  times,  and  this  assumption  is  strengthened  still  further, 
when  we  hear  that  the  Lamb  of  God,  although  foreordained 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  was  manifest  in  these  last 
times  (1,  20),  which  would  scarcely  have  any  meaning,  if  He 
had  not  previously  existed.  If  to  this  we  add  that  several 


j     Peter,  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  129 

Old  Testament  declarations  in  respect  to  God  are  transferred 
without  limitation  to  Christ  (comp.  2,  3  with  Ps.  34,  9 ;  3,  15 
with  Is.  8,  13),  and  that  according  to  the  most  simple  explana- 
tion Jesus  Christ  in  4,  11  is  the  subject  of  a  solemn  doxology, 
it  is  clear  that  th6  testimony  of  Peter  in  regard  to  the  super- 
human character  of  the  Lord,  although  comparatively  limited, 
is  by  no  means  ambiguous  or  unimportant. 

3.  Still  it  must  be  admitted  that  not  so  much  the  metaphysical 
as  the  historical  side  of  the  subject  stands,  with  him,  in  the  fore- 
ground, and  if  we  now  inquire  on  what  fact  the  Apostle  lays 
the  chief  emphasis,  we  must  first  of  all  speak  of  the  Lord's  res- 
urrection.    In  all  his  addresses  recorded  by  Luke,  it  is  warmly 
maintained ;  what  Peter  desires  every  Apostle  to  be  (Acts  1,  22), 
he  is  emphatically  himself — a  witness  of  the  resurrection      To 
him  the  Lord  is  the  Prince  of  life  (3,  15),  especially  as  the  Risen 
One,  and  it  is  to  him  a  perfectly  absurd  thought,  that  He  did 
not  rise  (2,  24).     He  firmly  declares  this  in  the  presence  of  the 
Jewish  council  (4,  10),  and  far  from  fearing  the  objection  that 
the  Risen  One  did  not  show  himself  to  all  the  people,  he  even 
mentions  this  fact,  but  sets  against  it  his  own  eating  and  drink- 
ing and  that  of  his  fellow-witnesses  with  Jesus  after  his  resur- 
rection.    In  the  beginning  of  his  first  epistle  (1,  1-3)  he  unites 
the  mention  of  the  blessing  of  regeneration  directly  with  that  of 
the  resurrection :  a  fact  which  admits  of  a  full  explanation  the 
instant  we  remember  what  the  joyful  news  of  the  resurrection 
was  to  the  fallen  Peter  himself  (Luke  24,  34).     As  he  himself 
was  thereby  born  again  to  a  new  life,  so  hope  now  first  became 
through  the  resurrection  a  living,  powerful  hope.     The  resur- 
rection and  glorification  of  Christ  stands  in  immediate  connection 
with  faith  and  hope  in  God  (1,  21),  and  even  baptism  exerts 
only  through  this  resurrection  a  saving  power  upon  its  recipient 
(3,  21).     Since  thus  a  risen  Christ  is  to  Peter  most  emphatically 
the  Christ,  it  will  not  surprise  us  that  he  describes  Him  once  in 
strong  oriental  imagery  as  "the  living  stone"  (2,  4). 

4.  The  principal  fact  of  this  marvelous  history  is,  however, 
not  the  only  one  to  which  our  Apostle  directs  the  attention  of 
his  hearers  and  readers.     While. declaring  that  God  has  raised 
up  his  perfect  servant  (3,  26),  he  does  not  fail  to  state — what  is 
found  in  the  writings  of  no  other  Apostle — that  God  anointed 


130  Biblical  Theology  of  the  ^ew  Testament. 

Him  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power  (Acts  10,  38).  He 
refers  probably  to  what  occurred  at  the  baptism  of  the  Master 
(comp.  Is.  42,  1 ;  61,  1),  and  does  not  forget  to  mention  repeat- 
edly his  miracles  (Acts  2,  22 ;  10,  38),  including  the  healing  of 
those  possessed,  while  he  magnifies  the  entire  public  life  of  the 
Lord  as  a  constant  series  of  benevolent  deeds  (Acts  10,  38).  He 
manifestly  cannot  keep  silent  as  to  what  he  has  seen  and  heard 
(Acts  4,  20).  Especially  when  speaking  of  the  suffering  and 
death  of  Jesus,  it  is  manifest  at  every  step  that  he  was  an  eye- 
witness. While  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  standing  in  the 
presence  of  enemies,  he  regards  it  as  a  terrible  crime  of  the  Jews 
(yet  not  without  palliation,  see  Acts  3, 17;  comp.  Luke  23,  34), 
he  exhibits  it  in  his  epistle,  speaking  to  Christians,  as  a  revela- 
tion of  the  greatness  of  Christ,  and  as  the  source  of  the  most  glo- 
rious benefits.  He  often  speaks  of  the  cross  as  the  tree  or  wood 
(r!>  £«Uo*>,  Acts  5,  30 ;  10,  39 ;  1  Pet.  2,  24,  perhaps  referring  to 
Deut.  21,  13),  but  what  took  place  there — and  this  was  to  Peter 
himself  certainly  the  first  ray  of  light  in  the  darkness — occurred 
according  to  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  Grod 
(Acts  2,  23).  With  this  testimony  in  regard  to  the  suffering  of 
Christ  (1  Pet.  5,  1),  we  have  incidentally  also  particular  features 
of  the  affecting  history  (Acts  3,  13.  14;  1  Pet.  2,  22.  23);  the 
manner  in  which  he  mentions  these  too,  clearly  shows  that  he 
regarded  this  suffering  in  the  light  of  the  prophetic  Scriptures, 
especially  of  Is.  53.  Thus  to  him  the  offence  of  the  cross  ceased. 
Christ  the  righteous  (comp.  Is.  53,  11)  had  suffered  for  sins 
(1  Pet.  3,  18),  and  not  only  so,  but  in  distinction  from  the  sacri- 
fices which  must  be  often  slain,  had  suffered  once  for  all,  and 
that  not  merely  to  give  the  most  illustrious  example,  but 
thereby  to  take  away  sin  (1  Pet  2,  21-24).  He  suffered,  hence, 
for  (jW^)  the  unrighteous ;  and  although  the  expression  in  itself 
does  not  express  the  idea  of  substitution,  it  is  plain  that  Peter 
thinks  of  a  suffering  (1  Pet.  3,  18 ;  2,  24)  by  which  others  are 
delivered  from  sufferings  which  they  deserve,  or,  in  other  words, 
of  a  vicarious  endurance  of  punishment  (comp.  Lam.  5,  7).  In 
consequence  of  this  suffering,  the  followers  of  Christ  are  healed— 
ransomed  with  this  price  of  blood  from  their  former  vain  con- 
versation, with  the  distinct  aim  that  they  should  die  unto  sin, 
and  live  unto  righteousness.  First  redeemed  from  the  guilt  and 


Peter,  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ.  131 

penalty  of  sin,  they  are   now   redeemed   from  its   dominion 
(1  Pet.  2,  24).* 

5.  Having  once  suffered  for  sin,  Christ  is  thenceforth  in  no 
relation  to  sins ;  he  who  has  suffered  in  the  flesh  (1  Pet  4,  1) 
frees   himself  from  the  relation   to   sin  and  the  world.     No 
wonder  that  He  who  is  dead  according  to  the  flesh  is  thereby 
made  alive  after  the  Spirit  (i.  e.  what  pertains  to  the  Spirit). 
Death  breaks  the  bonds  which  held  the  higher  life  in  shackles, 
and   introduces   Him   to   a   perfectly   unfettered    and   blessed 
activity.     It  is  this  active  work  of  the  departed  Spirit  of  the 
Lord,  to  which  Peter  repeatedly  bears  witness  (1  Pet.  3,  19-21 ; 
4,  6 ;  comp.  Acts  2,  31).     Our  plan  will  not  allow  us  to  state  or 
discuss  the  various  opinions  held  in  all  ages  in  regard  to  these 
enigmatical  declarations.     Enough,  that  we  reject  as  entirely 
arbitrary  the  view  that  a  work  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  by  the 
mouth  of  Noah  is  spoken  of,  and  also  the  opinion  (Baur)  that 
the  spirits  here  referred  to  are  the  fallen  angels  (2  Pet.  2,  4). 
The  Apostle  manifestly  speaks  of  a  work  of  the  spirit  of  the 
Lord  himself,  between  his  being  made  alive  after  the  Spirit  and 
his  ascension  into  heaven  (1  Pet.  19  and  22),  by  which  the 
gospel  of  reconciliation  was  announced  to  the  dead  and  particu- 
larly to  the  unhappy  dead,  one  generation  of  whom  is  expressly 
named.     Whether  or  not  this  work  was  limited  to  that  one 
generation ;  in  what  form  He  executed  it ;  what  was  its  result — 
to  all  these  questions  the  Apostle  gives  no  answer.     His  only 
aim,  plainly,  is  to  show  that  Christ,  who  died  for  sin,  did  not 
remain  inactive  even  after  death,  and  thus  to  set  in  a  clearer 
light  the  broad  extent  of  the  salvation  revealed  in  Him.     He 
even  mentions  this  mysterious  fact,  not  as  something  concealed 
and  only  communicated  to  him  by  revelation,  but  in  passing,  as 
a  matter  known  to  his  readers  equally  with  the  death  and  resur- 
rection of  the  Lord.     It  may  thus  be  called  a  peculiar  constitu- 
ent part  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter. 

6.  The  suffering  and  death  of  Christ,  which  terminated  with 
this  work  of  his  separate  spirit,  prepares  the  way  for  a  glory, 
which  not  less  than  the  suffering  which  preceded,  is  the  deserved 

*  1  Pet.  4,  1  does  not  here  come  into  view,  since  the  words,  for  «*,  are  not  found 
in  the  best  MSS.  Neither  does  1  Pet.  1,  2  directly,  at  least  if  it  is  true,  what 
we  assume  with  WEISS  and  others,  that  the  blood  of  Christ,  with  which  believers 
are  sprinkled,  is  here  distinctly  conceived  of  as  the  blood  of  the  covenant. 


132  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

object  of  the  interest  of  angels  (1  Pet.  1,  12).  In  the  mind  of 
Peter,  as  with  our  Lord  himself  (Luke  24,  26),  His  suffering 
and  glory  are  most  intimately  connected.  The  latter  has  been 
already  manifested  in  the  resurrection,  which  Peter  expressly 
represents  as  having  taken  place  on  the  third  day  (Acts  10,  40), 
and  therefore  as  a  fact  relating  to  the  body,  clearly  different 
from  the  glorification  of  the  Lord  in  heaven  (1  Pet.  3,  21.  22). 
Of  this  exaltation,  wrought  by  the  right  hand  of  God  (Acts 
2,  33),  our  Apostle  professes  to  have  been  a  witness,  no  less 
than  of  the  resurrection  which  preceded  it  (Acts  5,  31.  32) ;  it 
must  therefore,  according  to  his  account,  be  regarded  as  a  visible 
occurrence.  From  what  he  states  also  of  its  glory  and  results 
(1  Pet.  3,  22),  it  is  absolutely  clear  that  he  could  not  have  had 
in  mind  only  a  spiritual  dominion  in  a  figurative  sense.  The 
glorified  Christ,  also,  continues  to  be  personally  active  in  the 
promotion  of  the  highest  interests  of  his  followers.  He  is  and 
remains  the  shepherd  and  overseer  of  their  souls  (1  Pet.  2,  25) ; 
although  invisible,  he  is  still  the  object  of  their  constant  love 
and  joy  (1  Pet.  1,  8),  through  whom  alone  their  spiritual  sacri- 
fices can  be  acceptable  to  God  (1  Pet.  2,  5). 

7.  Even  if  we  go  no  farther,  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the 
Christology  of  Peter,  if  not  very  ample,  is  still  silent  on  no  side 
of  the  person  and  the  work  of  the  Lord,  and  hence  displays  just 
the  characteristics  which,  even  taking  into  account  only  his  first 
brief  epistle,  might  be  expected  from  an  individuality  like  his. 
His  entire  representation  entitles  him  to  the  honorable  title  of  a 
witness  and  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  while  it  shows  also  that  he 
was  a  disciple  of  the  Baptist  (John  1,  85-42).  This  last  remark 
leads  us  to  consider  another  characteristic  of  the  Apostle. 

Comp.,  in  addition  to  the  works  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
section,  "  The  Servant  of  the  Lord,"  by  C.  J.  NITZSCH  in  the 
Stud.  u.  Krit,  1828.— On  1  Pet.  3,  19-21 ;  4,  6,  VAN  OOSTER- 
ZEE,  "  Cliristology"  II.  196-202  ;  also  MEYER'S  Comm.  A  valu- 
able history  of  the  interpretation  of  this  passage  will  be  found 
in  WEISS,  "  The  Pelrine  Theology"  S.  216-227,  and  an  essay  by 
HOLWERDA,  in  the  Nieuwe  Jaarbb.  "VI.  [Also  by  Kev.  Thomas 
H.  Skinner,  D.D.,  on  "  Christ  preaching  to  the  Spirits  in  Prison," 
in  the  Bib.  Repository,  2d  series,  vol.  ix ;  and  John  Brown, 
D.D.,  on  1  Pet.  3,  18-21,  in  the  Bib.  Sacra,  IV.  pp.  709-744.] 


Peter,  the  Apostle  of  the  Circumcision.  133 

Questions  for  consideration. — What  is  the  meaning  of  Acts 
4,  12  ? — Explanation  of  the  fact,  that  in  the  first  discourses  of 
Peter  more  prominence  is  given  to  the  resurrection  than  to  the 
death  of  our  Lord. — The  Petrine  representation  of  the  appear- 
ance of  Christ  in  the  spirit-world  compared  with  that  in  the 
Gospel  of  Nicodemus. — Supposed  source  and  permanent  value 
of  this  account. — What  peculiar  significance  is  attached  in 
1  Pet.  1,  21 ;  3,  21,  to  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord  ? — Does 
Peter  also  give  intimations  respecting  the  -kind  of  relation 
between  the  glorified  Lord  and  his  followers  ? 

§28. 
Peter,  the  Apostle  of  the  Circumcision. 

Although  Peter,  as  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  announces 
the  salvation  in  Him  as  absolutely  indispensable  and  entirely 
open  to  all,  yet  both  the  contents  and  the  form  of  his  teaching 
justly  entitle  him  to  the  name  of  Apostle  of  the  Circumcision 
(Gal.  2,  7),  which  must  not,  however,  be  taken  in  a  one-sided 
particularistic  sense. 

1.  That  the  salvation  in  Christ  is   for  all  indispensable,  is 
made  prominent  and  emphatic  by  Peter  (Acts  4,  12).     The 
name  of  Christ,  so  warmly  mentioned  especially  in  his  first  dis- 
courses (Acts  2,  38 ;  3,  6.  16 ;  4,  10.  12 ;  comp.  Luke  24,  47), 
is  with  him  in  the  fullest  sense  the  banner  of  salvation.     A 
contrary  view  has  erroneously  been  supposed  to  be  given  in  the 
friendly  words  (Acts  10,  34.  35)  addressed  by  him  to  Cornelius. 
He  by  no  means  affirms  in  those  words  that  men  who  fear  God 
are  without  distinction  acceptable  (&?xr6?)  to  God  and  saved 
without  Christ,  but  only  that  they  are  to  be  received  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  and  thus  to  be  saved.     Were  it  otherwise, 
why  preaching  and  baptism  for  the  whole  heathen  household  ? 
"Not  indifferentism  in  regard  to  religions,  but  indifference, 
(impartially)  in  regard  to  the  acceptance  of  nations  is  here  af- 
firmed" (BENGEL). 

2.  This  absolute  indispensableness  is  the  logical  result  of  the 
universality  of  sin.     In  itself  the  doctrine  of  sin  is  but  little 
developed  in  Peter.     Of  its  origin  he  does  not  speak  expressly. 
While  Paul  ascends  to  its  source,  Peter  points  to  the  turbid 


134  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

stream.  The  sin  of  the  Jewish  people  culminates  before  his 
sight  in  the  rejection  of  the  Messiah  (Acts  2,  36).  That  of  the 
heathen  is  the  fruit  of  ignorance,  which  blinded  them  in  their 
condition  before  the  coming  of  Christ  (1  Pet.  1,  14).  While  the 
carnal  desires  are  in  themselves  sinful  (4,  2),  their  manifestation 
in  many  a  perverse  form  is  especially  in  diametrical  opposition 
to  the  will  of  God,  and  leads  him  who  professes  the  gospel  back 
to  his  former  heathen  position  (4,  3-4).  Even  the  Christian  is 
still  in  constant  danger  of  sinning  (5,  8),  and  will  not  be  saved 
without  great  difficulty  (4,  18).  In  accordance  with  all  this, 
there  is  both  for  Jews  and  Gentiles  but  one  way  of  salvation — 
the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  without  the  burdensome 
yoke  of  the  works  of  the  law  (Acts  15,  10.  11). 

3.  What  is  necessary  for  all,  all  may  obtain.     On  the  day  of 
Pentecost  he  proclaims  the  salvation  in  Christ  as  provided  for 
all  men.     Grace  is  preached  to  the  greatest  sinners  among  the 
Jews,  and  allusion  is  not  obscurely  made  to  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles  (Acts  2,  39).     If  the  thought  of  Peter  at  first  was  that 
the  latter  must  be  brought  over  the  bridge  of  Judaism  to  the 
kingdom  of  God,  after  the  revelation  recorded  in  Acts  10  we 
see  in  his  conception  this  limitation  falling  away.     He  even  lays 
manifest  emphasis  upon  the  fact  that  God  has  broken  down  the 
wall  of  separation,  by  bestowing  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  Jews  and 
Gentiles  alike,  and  purifying  the  hearts  of  both  through  faith. 
There  is  thus  no  ground  for  charging  Peter  with  a  narrow  par- 
ticularism, which  drove  him  to  see  in  the  Jews,  if  not  exclusively 
yet  chiefly,  the  heirs  of  the  kingdom  of  God.     The  remarkable 
declaration,  Acts  3,  26,  that  God  had  sent  his  son  Jesus  first  to 
the  Jews  (comp,  John  4,  22),  is  a  proof  to  the  contrary. 

4.  The  conditions,  also,  of  participation  in  the  salvation  in 
Christ,  are  according  to  Peter  extremely  simple.     In  his  dis- 
course to  the  unbelieving  Jews,  we  hear  him,  entirely  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Baptist  and  of  the  Messiah,  repeatedly  exhort  to 
repentance  (Acts  2,  38 ;  3,  19).     In  this  conversion  is  included 
faith,  which  in  his  preaching  to  Cornelius  he  presents  as  the 
chief  requirement  (Acts  10,  47),  and  which  manifests  itself  by 
the  willing  submission  to  the  rite  of  baptism,  with  which  the 
reception  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  connected  (Acts  2,  38) — still  not  in  such  a  way  as  if 


Peter,  the  Apostle  of  the  Circumcision.  135 

the  water  in  baptism  had  in  itself  a  supernatural  efficacy.  Only 
to  that  baptism  is  value  ascribed,  which  is  united  with  the  prom- 
ise to  keep  a  good  conscience  before  God  (1  Pet  3,  21).  Such  a 
baptism  saves,  as  the  water  of  the  flood  saved  the  family  of  Noah 
in  the  ark,  and  those  who.  submit  to  it  begin  even  here  to  be 
partakers  of  the  salvation  (CTO>TJ%>/«)  in  Christ.  No  one  because  of 
his  earlier  state,  has  any  preeminence  above  another,  for  Christ 
is  Lord  of  all  (Acts  10,  36),  and  the  Holy  Spirit  raises  all  who 
believe  to  the  same  freedom  and  equality  (15,  8.  9). 

5.  Yet,  purely  Christian  as  all  this  is,  the  form  in  which  the 
Apostle  clothes  these  thoughts  and  still  more  their  contents, 
present  him  to  us  as  the  Apostle  of  the  Circumcision.  Both  in 
the  book  of  Acts  and  in  the  Epistles,  we  see  in  him  a  man 
wholly  penetrated  with  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
preferring  to  use  its  language.  No  part  of  the  New  Testament 
contains  more  citations  from  the  Old  Testament,  or  more  refer- 
ences to  it,  than  the  first  epistle  of  Peter.  In  the  discourse  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost  we  hear  him  maintaining  the  resurrection 
and  ascension  of  the  Lord  by  appealing  to  the  16th  and  the 
110th  Psalm.  In  Acts  3,  he  exhibits  him  as  the  "Prophet," 
and  in  Acts  4,  as  the  "  stone  "  referred  to  in  the  Psalms.  He 
summons  all  the  prophets  from  Samuel  onwards  (Acts  3,  24)  as 
witnesses ;  the  whole  of  Christianity  is  to  him  the  fulfillment  of 
prophecy.  It  was  revealed  to  the  prophets  that  the  things 
which  they  announced  were  not  for  themselves  but  for  believers 
in  Christ  (1  Pet.  1, 12),  and  the  Apostle  who  attests  this  has  him- 
self sat  at  their  feet.  With  their  own  words,  although  not  always 
mentioning  them  by  name,  he  affirms  and  defends  his  position 
(see,  e.  g.  1  Pet  1,  24.  25  comp.  with  Is.  40,  6-8 ;  2,  3  comp. 
with  Ps.  34,  9 ;  3, 10-12  comp.  with  Ps.  34,  13-17 ;  4,  18  comp. 
with  Prov.  11,  31 ;  5,  7  comp.  with  Ps.  55,  23).  The  chief 
requirement  of  the  law  (1,  16)  and  the  promise  of  salvation  in 
prophecy  (2,  6)  are  expressly  quoted,  and  prominent  persons  in 
the  history  of  the  Old  Testament,  Noah,  for  instance,  with  his 
household,  Sarah  in  relation  to  Abraham,  and  even  the  holy 
women  of  antiquity  in  general  are  exhibited  as  examples  to 
believers  (3,  5.  6.  20.  21).  They  who  walk  according  to  these 
examples,  are  distinguished  with  Old  Testament  titles  of  honor 
elsewhere  applied  to  Israel.  They  are  styled  "  elect "  (1,  2),  "  a 


136  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

royal  priesthood  "  (2,  9),  and  constitute  together  "  the  house  of 
God  "  (4,  17).  The  word  church  or  congregation  (txxfyata)  does 
not  here  occur;  but  we  find  the  terms  "people  of  God"  (2,  9. 
10),  and  "flock  of  the  Lord"  (5,  2.  3),  which  are  so  often 
applied  to  Israel  in  the  Prophets  and  Psalms,  and  invested, 
undoubtedly,  in  the  mind  of  Peter  with  a  special  dignity  (comp. 
John  21,  15-17).  The  Old  Testament  idea  of  election  (comp. 
Deut.  7,  6)  constantly  appears  in  his  discourses  and  epistles. 
So  firmly,  indeed,  does  our  Apostle  regard  every  thing  from  a 
teleological  point  of  view,  that  he  reverently  recognizes  the  ful- 
fillment of  God's  counsel,  when  the  disobedient  stumble  at  the 
word  of  his  grace  (2,  8). 

6.  In  the  doctrine  concerning  God,  also,  from  which  Peter 
sets  out,  the  key-note  is  that  of  the  Old  Testament.     It  is  un- 
questionably the  privilege  of  Christians  that  they  are  entitled 
to  call  on  God  as  their  Father  (1,  17) — it  seems  as  if  at  this  point 
the  beginning  of  the  Lord's  prayer  passed  through  his  mind — 
but  the  Father  passes  sentence  also  as  Judge,  without  respect 
of  persons.     He  is  the  faithful  Creator  (4,  19),  and  next  to  this 
attribute  of  faithfulness,  so  much  extolled  at  all  times  by  the 
prophets  of  Israel,  his  power,  holiness,  omniscience  and  right- 
eousness are  especially  made  prominent     The  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  is  also  here  viewed  less  from  the  metaphysical  than  from 
the  theocratic  side,  and  if  Peter  is  the  only  Apostle  who  calls 
him  a  lamb  (d^s),  this  too  is  borrowed  from  Isaiah  (53,  7). 
The  Holy  Spirit,  finally,  is  undoubtedly  mentioned  by  Peter 
(Acts  5,  3.  4),  but,  as  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Spirit  is  here  but  comparatively  little  developed. 

7.  The  view  of  the  Christian  life,  predominant  in  the  utter- 
ances of  our  Apostle,  exhibits  essentially  the  same  character. 
The  fear  of  God,  accompanied  by  works  of  righteousness,  is  that 
on  which  he  especially  insists  (2,  17  ;  comp.  Acts  10,  35).     The 
name  of  children  (1,  14)  and  even  of  little  children  (2,  2)  is 
given  indeed  to  the  redeemed — Israel  also  was  addressed  under 
the  old  dispensation  by  the  same  tender  appellation — but  still 
they  ever  are  and  remain  servants  of  God  (dovloi,  2,  16),  and  are 
called  to  walk  in  fear  (1,  17).     Believing  and  obeying  are  with 
Peter  correlative  terms  (1,  2 ;  2,  7),  and  not  filial  love  so  much 
as  filial  awe  is  the  key-note  of  the  spiritual  life  here  described. 


Peter,  the  Apostle  of  the  Circumcision.  137 

Although  the  yoke  of  the  law  is  broken  (Acts  15,  10),  its 
requirements  still  remain  the  rule  for  the  life  and  conduct  of 
the  disciples  of  the  Lord  (1  Pet.  3,  8-15).  Thus  serving  God 
together,  they  discharge  the  duty  which  under  the  old  dispen- 
sation was  assigned  to  a  particular  tribe.  It  may  be  affirmed 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  priesthood  of  believers  (2, 
4-9)  is  preeminently  Petrine.  In  none  of  the  other  epistles,  at 
least,  and  only  in  the  Apocalypse,  1,  5.  6 ;  5,  8-10,  is  it  so  em- 
phatically declared.  But  even  this  idea  is  essentially  of  Old 
Testament  origin,  and  not  less  the  description  of  Christians  as 
strangers  and  pilgrims  (2,  11 ;  comp.  Ps.  119,  19  and  other 
passages).  Peculiarities  like  these  are  the  more  worthy  of 
notice,  if  it  is  true  that  the  first  readers  of  this  epistle  of  Peter 
were  principally  Jews,  though  by  no  means  exclusively  so,  as 
is  plain  from  the  form  of  address  in  1,  14 ;  2, 10  ;  4,  3.  4.  Even 
those  who  had  previously  been  in  the  darkness  of  heathenism 
are  here  addressed  as  fully  sharing  in  the  blessing  of  Israel, 
and  now  also  called  with  them  to  the  realization  of  the  ideal  of 
the  ancient  theocracy. 

8.  What  has  been  observed  concerning  the  Old  Testament 
coloring  of  the  Petrine  Theology  defines  its  character,  but  does 
not  diminish  its  importance.  Both  propositions  are  true,  viz : 
the  New  Testament  is  the  fulfilling,  and  the  opposite,  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Paul  emphasizes  the  latter,  Peter  the  former.  It 
was  just  by  reason  of  this  peculiarity  that  he  was  the  better 
fitted  to  bring  the  Gospel  to  Israel,  and  as  Israel  itself  was  a 
people  of  expectation  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word,  so  its 
first  Apostle  was  also  the  Apostle  of  hope. 

Comp.  WEISS,  I  c.  S.  98-197  and  the  literature  there  cited ;  to 
which  may  be  added  VAN  TEUTEM,  bl.  31  sqq.,  FKONMULLER, 
"  The  Petrine  Theology,"  §  4  of  the  introduction. 

Questions  for  consideration. — What  is  the  meaning  of  Acts  2, 
40i  ? — In  what  relation  does  Peter  represent  himself  and  his 
fellow  believers  as  standing  to  the  old  dispensation,  Acts  15, 
7-11?— How  may  this  be  reconciled  with  Gal.  2,  11-13?— 
What  does  Peter  teach  concerning  baptism  ? — What  concerning 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  ? — What  place  does  the  idea  of  pre- 
destination occupy  in  the  theology  of  Peter? — What  accord- 


138  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

ance  and  what  difference  is  to  be  observed  between  the  way  in 
which  the  Old  Testament  is  employed  by  him  and  by  our  Lord  ? 

§29. 
Peter,  the  Apostle  of  Hope. 

Both  the  discourses  and  the  first  epistle  of  Peter  exhibit  him 
to  us  as  especially  the  Apostle  of  hope,  in  the  sense  that  the 
expectation  of  the  coming  of  the  Lord  governs  his  whole  repre- 
sentation of  Christian  truth,  and  not  less  his  whole  exhibition 
of  the  Christian  life.  As  this  peculiarity  of  his  may  be  fully 
explained  by  his  individuality,  it  gives  us  also  the  key  to  the 
explanation  of  his  course  of  thought  and  the  measure  for  esti- 
mating the  value  of  his  theology. 

1.  The  name,   Apostle  of  hope,  refers  by  no  means  to  a 
characteristic  which  belongs  exclusively  to  Peter,  but  only  to 
a  peculiarity  which  appears  in  his  theology  more  strongly  than 
in  that  of  others.     In  none  of  the  Apostles  do  we  find  the 
mention  and  praise  of  Christian  hope  (ttnig)  wanting,  but  the 
Petrine  theology  is  especially  characterized  by  it.     Christian 
hope  constitutes  not  merely  the  end,  but  the  center  of  all  his 
teachings.     The  Gospel,  which  from  one  side  is  the  brightest 
fulfillment,  is  in  his  view  from  the  other  the  most  glorious 
promise.     He  speaks  of  it  constantly,  and  is  ever  returning 
to  it  with  warm  affection.     Whether  we  fix  our  attention  upon 
his  discourses  or  upon  his  first  epistle,  it  is  always  the  expecta- 
tion of  the  future  which  imparts  glow  and  life  to  his  whole  pre- 
sentation. 

2.  In  the  very  beginning  of  his  discourse  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  Peter  points  out,  in  the  light  of  the  prophecy  of 
Joel,  not  merely  what  is  now  imparted,  but  also  what  is  to  be 
expected  in  the  future   (Acts  2,  16-21);   and   although  his 
discourse  is  addressed  exclusively  to  the  house  of  Israel,  he 
cannot  omit  to  direct  his  eye  towards  all  "that  are  afar  off" 
(Acts  2,  39).     In  his  next  discourse  he  insists  upon  conversion 
(3,  19-21),  that  thus  the  times  of  refreshing  may  come,  though 
the  coming  again  of  Christ,  who  has  now  indeed  temporarily 


Peter,  ike  Apostle  of  Hope.  139 

ascended  to  heaven,  but  is  ready  to  establish  his  kingdom  in 
Israel  and  to  restore  all  things.  The  address  also  to  Cornelius 
hastens,  as  it  were,  to  announce  Christ  as  the  ordained  judge  of 
the  quick  and  the  dead  (10,  42),  and  even  in  the  brief  address 
at  the  Apostolic  Council  in  Jerusalem,  the  expectation  is  evi- 
dent of  a  salvation  in  part  still  future  (15,  11). 

3.  Still  more  marked  is  this  peculiarity  in  the  first  epistle  of 
Peter.  He  begins  with  a  doxology  (1,  3),  which  reminds 
us  at  once  of  that  in  Paul's  epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  But 
while  the  latter  (Eph.  1,  3)  emphasizes  in  general  the  spiritual 
blessings  in  Christ,  Peter  renders  thanks  above  all  for  the 
blessing  of  being  begotten  again  to  a  living  hope,  through  the 
resurrection  of  the  Lord.  No  special  reason  for  the  mention 
of  this  particular  blessing  can  be  assigned,  except  that  it  lies 
very  near  to  his  heart.  The  object  of  hope,  the  heavenly 
inheritance,  is  set  forth  in  a  series  of  elevated  expressions,  kin- 
dred to  each  other,  and  yet  expressing  different  ideas.  It  is 
"  incorruptible,"  because  it  belongs  to  the  sphere  of  eternal 
things;  uundefiled,"  as  not  subject  to  defilement  through  sin; 
it  "passeth  not  away,"  is  not  only  enduring,  but  ever  equally 
glorious.  This  eternal,  holy  and  glorious  inheritance  is  per- 
fectly secured  to  believers ;  it  is  reserved  for  them,  and  they 
are  kept  unto  the  salvation  which  is  already  about  to  be 
revealed  (vs.  5).  The  present  suffering  (vs.  6)  will  be  brief 
(comp.  John  16,  16),  and  will  increase  their  blessedness  (vs.  7). 
Their  joy  in  believing  is  even  now  full  of  glory  (vs.  8) ;  it  is 
present  where  its  object  is,  and  whence  they  look  for  the  end  of 
their  faith,  the  salvation  of  their  souls  (vs.  9).  The  Christian 
life  is,  therefore,  a  perfect  hoping  for  grace  (1,  13).  That  not 
only  their  faith,  but  also  their  hope  might  be  in  God,  Christ 
rose  and  was  glorified  (1,  21).  With  the  single  remark  that 
they  hoped  in  God  (3,  5)  is  the  character  of  the  pious  women 
in  the  Old  Testament  described.  Accordingly  it  is  of  the  hope 
that  is  in  them,  that  believers  must  always  be  ready  to  give  a 
reason  (3,  15).  The  time  which  we  live  in  the  flesh  is  short, 
and  Christ  is  soon  to  pronounce  judgment  (4,  3—7).  The  final 
judgment  upon  the  Church  has  already  begun  (4,  17),  and 
therefore  that  upon  the  world  will  not  be  expected  in  vain. 
So  far  as  the  Apostle  himself  is  concerned,  there  is  to  him 


140  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

nothing  more  desirable,  next  to  being  called  a  witness  of  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,  than  to  be  styled  a  partaker  of  the  coming 
glory  (5,  1).  The  exhibition  of  the  future  reward  constitutes 
the  ground  of  his  strongest  exhortation  (vs.  4),  and  the  Chris- 
tian call  to  eternal  glory,  after  brief  suffering,  is  the  theme  of 
his  doxology  (vs.  10).  All  this  is,  without  doubt,  entirely  in 
the  spirit  of  the  Lord  (comp.  Luke  24,  26) ;  but  it  is  also  the 
expression  and  fruit  of  the  felt  personal  need  of  the  light  of 
the  future  to  shine  upon  the  darkness  of  the  present.  The 
expectation  of  this  glory  is,  as  it  were,  the  axis  around  which 
all  the  teachings  of  the  Apostle  revolve.  There  is  not  an  inti- 
mation that  he  anticipates  a  protracted  struggle  for  the  members 
of  the  Christian  Church ;  their  Head  is  already  on  the  point  of 
coming.  The  condition  of  believers  after  death,  the  resurrection 
of  the  righteous,  the  endless  retribution  of  the  wicked, — these 
are  not  at  all  or  scarcely  touched.  Above  all  this,  the  Apostle 
directs  them  to  look  to  the  glorious  end,  the  personal  coming  of 
the  Lord. 

4.  In  proof  of  the  correctness  of  the  above  description,  we 
give  an  analysis  of  the  first  epistle  of  Peter,  in  accordance  with 
the  point  of  view  just  taken.  First  he  speaks  in  exalted  lan- 
guage of  the  glory  of  hope  (1,  3-12)  and  that  in  regard  to  its 
firm  basis  (vs.  3-5),  its  joy  fulness  (vs.  6-9),  and  its  exalted  nature 
(vs.  10-12).  Next  he  rapidly  proceeds,  in  the  most  earnest 
manner,  to  commend  and  strengthen  the  life  of  hope.  A  gene* 
ral  exhortation  to  hope  fully  for  grace  (vs.  13)  may  be  regarded 
as  the  fertile  text,  the  result  of  all  that  precedes,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  theme  of  all  the  exhortations  and  consolations  which 
now  follow.  They  are  (a)  partly  of  a  more  general  kind  (1,  14- 
2, 10),  so  far  as  they  call  believers  without  distinction  to  personal 
holiness  (1,  14-21),  mutual  love  (1,  22-2,  3),  and  the  common 
glorifying  of  (rod  and  the  Saviour  (2,  4-10).  Partly  also  (b) 
they  have  a  more  definite  bearing  (2,  11-5,  6)  so  far  as  they  re- 
late either  to  believers  in  the  world  and  in  society  (2,  11-4,  6) 
whether  as  subjects,  servants,  married  persons,  or  members  of 
the  suffering  and  struggling  Church  as  a  whole,  or  to  the  mutual 
relations  of  believers  (4,  7-5,  5)  as  called  to  live  for  one  another 
(4,  7-11),  to  suffer  together  (vs.  12-16),  and  to  be  subject  to  each 
other  (5,  1-5).  In  conclusion  (c),  all  is  once  more  summed  up 


Peter,  the  Apostle  of  Hope.  141 

in  the  general  exhortation  to  be  humble  towards  God  (5,  6.  7), 
watchful  of  themselves  (vs.  8),  sympathizing  to  those  about  them 
(vs.  9),  and  hopeful  of  the  future  (vs.  10,  11).  But  among  all 
these  exhortations  there  is  scarcely  one  which  does  not,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  stand  connected  with  the  first  and  general 
one  (1,  13) :  "  hope  fully  for  the  grace  that  is  brought  unto  you 
in  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ." 

5.  The  element  of  hope  in  the  Petrine  Theology  is  equally 
explicable  and  undeniable.     It  springs  from  the  individuality 
of  the  Apostle,  whose  first  epistle  may  be  styled  "a  portrait  in 
letters."     Even  as  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  (§  27)  Peter  is  an 
Apostle  of  hope ;  his  expectation  is  founded  upon  the  words  of 
the  Master  himself  (Matt.  19,  28-30).     As  the  Apostle  also  of 
the  circumcision  (§  28)  he  must  be  the  same ;  the  predictions  of 
the  prophets  were  only  partially  fulfilled  in  the  first  and  humble 
coming  of  Christ.     "Peter  is  a  man  formed  in  the  school  of  the 
Old  Testament,  but  who  has  learned  the  new  things  in  all  their 
richness  and  in  all  their  grandeur"  (BoNiFAS).     But  he  is, 
above  all,  the  Apostle  of  hope,  because  he  is  Simon  Peter,  and 
not  John  or  Thomas ;  the  impulsive,  sanguine  man,  in  whom 
the  earlier  search  and  striving  for  a  better  future,  is  tempered, 
but   not  destroyed.     "  Gratia   non   tollil,  sed  sanat  naturam." 
The  more  the  new  man  now  and  then  still  felt  the  influence  of 
the  old  (Gral.  2,  11),  so  much  the  more  earnestly  must  he  have 
longed  after  salvation. 

6.  The  value  of  the  Petrine  Theology  is  not  lessened  by  the 
observation,  that  the  hope  of  the  Apostle  has  not  been  fulfilled 
in  the  form  in  which  it  is  here  cherished  and  experienced. 
The  day  of  our  Lord's  coming,  not  definitely  made  known  by 
Him,  was  and  remained  a  matter  of  individual  expectation,  in 
respect  to  which  only  the  time  itself  could  shed  the  true  light. 
If  Peter  shared  in  the  views   of  the  entire  apostolic  age  on 
thie  point,  still  the  great  event  itself,  expected  by  him,  remains 
the  object  of  expectation  of  all  succeeding  ages,  and  the  hope 
lauded  by  him  continues  to  be  an  inexhaustible  fountain  of 
comfort  and  sanctification.     So  attractive  in  various  respects  is 
the  account  of  this  hope  given  in  his  writings,  that  the  question 
can  hardly  be  passed  over,  whether  he  has  not  expressed  him- 
self still  further  at  a  later  time  respecting  it.     This  question 


142  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

naturally  directs  our   attention   to   the   second  epistle  which 
bears  the  name  of  Peter. 

Comp.  WEISS,  I  c.  S.  25  ff. ;  MAYEKHOFF  "  Historwo-critical 
Introduction  to  the  Petrine  writings"  Hamb.,  1835.  [LlLLlE,  On 
the  Epistles  of  Peter,  New  York,  1869.] 

Questions  for  consideration. — Whence  the  general  expectation 
of  the  apostolic  age  concerning  a  speedy  coming  of  the  Lord, 
in  which  Peter  also  shnred? — What  connection  is  there  between 
his  Eschatology  and  that  of  the  Synoptical  Christ  ? — What 
does  he  mean  in  Acts  3,  21  by  ctnoxaKiaraais  nbviwv  and  what 
does  he  expect  from  it? — What,  according  to  him,  are  the 
signs  of  the  coming  of  the  Lord  ? — What  does  he  teach  con- 
cerning the  rewards  and  punishments  of  the  world  to  come  ? 

§30. 
The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter. 

Although  very  serious  objections  are  brought  against  the 
Apostolic  origin  of  the  second  epistle  attributed  to  Peter,  yet 
the  theology  which  it  teaches  bears,  with  all  its  peculiarity,  an 
undeniably  Petrine  character.  Indeed,  this  epistle  exhibits 
traces  of  the  individuality  of  Peter,  as  an  Apostle  of  Jesus 
Christ,  an  Apostle  of  the  circumcision,  and  the  Apostle  of 
hope,  to  such  an  extent,  that  its  contents,  in  themselves  con- 
sidered, are  much  more  strongly  in  favor  of  its  genuineness 
than  against  it. 

1.  The  doubts  in  regard  to  the  genuineness  of  the  second 
epistle  of  Peter,  date  from  the  earliest  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era.  Irenasus,  Tertullian,  Cyprian  and  others  are  acquainted 
with  only  one  epistle  of  Peter;  Origen  and  Eusebius  doubt 
the  genuineness  of  the  second,  and  it  is  not  found  in  the  most 
ancient  Syriac  version.  Even  Erasmus  and  Calvin  speak 
doubtfully  or  unfavorably,  and  in  our  time  the  majority  of 
critics  decidedly  question  its  genuineness.  On  the  other  hand 
it  has  found  defenders,  even  in  our  age,  in  Hag,  Flatt,  Kern, 


The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter.  143 

Heidenreich,  Windischmann,  Dietlein,  Thiersch,  Guericke, 
Fronmiiller,  Steinfass,  and  others,  and  Weiss  and  Briickner 
are  manifestly  inclined  to  recognize  it,  so  that  the  science  of 
Introduction  cannot  regard  the  question  as  settled.  The  The- 
ology of  the  New  Testament  can  only  examine  its  theology 
and  inquire  how  far  it  exhibits  or  does  not  exhibit  a  Petrine 
character. 

2.  Undoubtedly  a  difference  may  be  observed  here  and  there 
between  the  doctrinal  and  ethical  contents  of  the  second  and 
the  first  epistles.     Much  stronger  emphasis  is  laid  in  the  for- 
mer upon  the  knowledge  (e^v^aig)  of  the  gospel ;  many  ideas 
expressed  in  the  first  epistle  are  here  not  at  all  or  scarcely 
touched  upon ;  and  throughout,  the  resemblance  to  the  epistle 
of  Jude  is  greater  than  is  found  between  any  other  two  writers 
of  the  New  Testament.     Yet  these  and  other  peculiarities  may 
be  accounted  for,  at  least  to  a  certain  degree,  partly  from  the 
different  wants  of  the  readers,  partly  from  the  special  aim  of 
the  writer,  and  in  part,  finally,  from  the  individuality  of  Peter 
himself.     In  no  case  do  they  impair  the  thoroughly  Petrine 
coloring  of  this  epistle,  which  is  admitted  even  by  those  who 
dispute  its  genuineness,  however  otherwise  it  may  be  explained. 
It  often  occurs,  and  not  unfrequently  in  a  surprising  manner, 
that,  as  LUTTERBECK  expresses  it,  "  the  second  epistle  of  Peter 
teaches  apparently  the  opposite,  but  in  fact  the  same  thing,  as 
the  first  epistle." 

3.  The   writer   of  this   second   epistle,    also,    speaks   as   an 
Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word.     Just  as 
in  the  first,  the  historical  Christ  is  distinctly  the  central  point 
of  his  entire  teaching,  without  express  mention,  beyond  this,  of 
the  pre-existence  of  the  Lord.     He  is  the  Saviour  (3,  2),  and 
the  principal  benefit  which  believers  owe  to  Him  consists  in 
being  cleansed  from  their  former  sins  (i,  9 ;  comp.  1  Pet  1,  2). 
He  has  redeemed  them  (2,  1 ;  comp.  1  Pet.  1,  18),  and  does  not 
cease,  even   after  his   departure  from  earth,  to  stand  in  the 
closest  relation  to  them  (1,  14 ;  comp.  1  Pet.  2,  25).     Of  the 
glory  which  he  now  enjoys,  the  writer  has  already  seen  a  re- 
flection on  the  mount  of  transfiguration  (1, 16-18) :  a  particular 
fact  in  the  life  of  our  Lord,  which  is  not  mentioned  in  any 
other  of  the  New  Testament  epistles,  just  as  another  event,  not 


144  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

less  mysterious,  is  mentioned  only  in  the  first  epistle  of  Peter 
(1  Pet.  3, 19-21).  No  wonder  that  Christ  stands  before  the  eye 
of  the  writer  in  the  glory  of  a  truly  Divine  dignity.  What  was 
assumed  or  indicated  is  here  distinctly  declared.  In  addition 
to  the  name  of  Saviour,  our  Lord  is  styled  God  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  epistle  (1, 1),  and  the  doxology  addressed  to  Him  at 
the  end  (3, 18),  sets  the  seal  to  this  appellation.  In  a  word,  the 
lines  of  thought,  commencing  in  the  book  of  Acts  and  in  the 
first  epistle  of  Peter,  we  here  find  methodically  extended. 

4.  We  find  no  less   harmony,  whenever,   with   the  second 
epistle  in  our  hands,  we  think  of  Peter  as  the  Apostle  of  the 
Circumcision,  as  he  is  exhibited  in  the  first.     The  Old  Testa- 
ment coloring,  there  observable,  is  here  constantly  appearing 
anew,  both  in  regard  to  the  clothing  and  the  substance  of  the 
ideas.     In  the  forefront  stands  the  righteousness  of  God  (1,  1), 
and  almost  immediately  (vs.  10)  the  election  (^xAoyrj)  of  believ- 
ers  is   brought    to   view   as    being    their   peculiar    privilege. 
The  same  high  estimate  of  the  prophetic  word,  with  an  exhibi- 
tion of  its  divine  origin  similar  to  that  given  in  the  first  epistle 
(1,  10-12),  here  comes  into  view  (1,  19-21).     In  a  single  in- 
stance, as  in  the  first  epistle,  the  Old  Testament  is  expressly 
cited  (2,  22) ;  but  the  number  of  passages  is  much  larger,  in 
which  there  is  an  allusion  to  its  historical  import,  or  its  style 
even  is  unconsciously  adopted.     Here  also  mention  is  made  of 
the  age  of  Noah  (2,  5),  and  of  Abraham  (vv.  6  if.) ;  this  time, 
however,   in  accordance  with  the  special  aim  of  the   epistle, 
with  reference  not  to  the  obedient  Sarah,  but  to  the  God-fearing 
Lot  (2,  7-9).     Here,  moreover,  is  a  repeated  and  pertinent  use 
of  what  might  be  regarded  as  known  from  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  (2,  13-16;    comp.  Num.  22,  16-34;    2,  22;    comp. 
Prov.  26,  11 ;  3,  5 ;  comp.  Gen.  1,  2 ;  3,  7 ;  comp.  Gen.  9,  11 ; 
3,  8 ;  comp.  Ps.  90,  4 ;  3,  12 ;  comp.  Is.  65,  17).     He  also  adds 
the  mention  of  the  last  day  as  the  day  of  God  (3,  10),  entirely 
in  the  spirit  of  the  old  prophets.     The  New  Testament  is  here 
also,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  the  completion  and  crown, 
never  the  opposite,  of  the  Old. 

5.  The  second  epistle  to  one  who  listens  with  an  attentive 
ear,  reveals  also  the  Apostle  of  hope.     At  the  very  outset,  the 
writer  directs  the  attention  of  his  reader  to  the  divine  promises 


The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter.  145 

(1,  4)  and  urges  them  to  make  progress  in  holiness  by  referring 
especially  to  the  future  (vs.  11).  The  "putting  off  the  taber- 
nacle "  (1,  14)  recalls  to  mind  the  figure  of  "pilgrimage"  in 
the  first  epistle  (2,  11).  Most  of  all,  however,  is  attention  here 
to  be  directed  to  the  extended  digression  (3,  3-15)  to  the  de- 
struction of  the  present  order  of  things  with  its  great  conse- 
quences, which  would  almost  justify  us  in  calling  it  an  abridged 
Apocalypse.  The  difference  from  the  first  epistle  in  respect  to 
eschatology  is  merely  relative  and  by  no  means  incapable  of 
explanation.  If  some  time  had  elapsed  between  the  composi- 
tion of  the  two  epistles,  it  might  and  must  have  become  mani- 
fest to  the  Apostle,  that  the  earnestly  desired  future  might  be 
delayed  somewhat  longer  than  he  had  originally  expected. 
This  delay  he  could  be  the  less  insensible  to,  because  it  was 
abused  by  scoffers,  against  whose  seductions  he  here  arms  be- 
lievers, while  in  the  first  epistle  he  comforts  them  under  suffer- 
ing by  referring  to  the  glory  to  come.  Here,  however,  as  there, 
his  look  is  directed,  with  longing,  to  the  end,  and  the  exhorta- 
tion not  merely  to  watch,  but  also  to  hasten  (anovd^ei^)  to 
the  day  of  God,  exhibited  a  Petrine  character,*  as  does  the 
strong  urging  to  holiness  with  which  the  life  of  hope  is  also 
here  brought  into  direct  connection.  And  in  regard,  finally,  to 
the  main  import  of  the  expectations  here  disclosed,  it  must  be 
observed  that  they  attach  themselves  entirely  to  the  promise  of 
the  prophets  and  the  declarations  of  our  Lord  himself.  The 
untenableness  of  a  doctrinal  view  in  the  light  of  a  later  age  is 
no  proof  that  Peter  might  not  have  embraced  and  expressed  it 
6.  It  must  be  admitted  that  differences  of  more  or  less  im- 
portance are. opposed  to  the  accordance  pointed  out;  but  differ- 
ences of  thought  or  clothing  in  two  different  writings  prove 
nothing  in  themselves  against  the  identity  of  the  author,  and 
least  of  all  when  this  author  exhibits  an  individuality  like  that 
of  Simon  Peter.  It  is  enough,  that  on  not  a  single  point  of 
importance  do  the  two  epistles  contradict  each  other,  and  cer- 
tainly the  appearance  of  contradiction  would  be  most  carefully 
avoided  by  an  impostor,  abusing  the  name  of  Peter.  There  is  at 

*  This  [genuine  Petrine]  word  occurs  thrico  in  our  epistle,  and  only  seven  times 
in  both  the  epistles  of  Peter.  Would  an  impostor,  seeking  to  write  in  the  style  of 
the  Apostle,  have  paid  regard  to  such  slight  psychological  peculiarities? 


146     .  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

least  no  greater  difference  between  the  first  and  second  epistles, 
which  bear  the  name  of  Peter,  than  between  some  writings  of 
John  and  Paul,  the  genuineness  of  which  no  candid  man  doubts. 

7.  Other  internal  difficulties,  derived  from  the  difference  in 
style  between  the  first  and  second  epistles ;  from  the  relation  of 
the  latter  to  the  Grospel  history,  the  epistles  of  Paul,  the  general 
epistle  of  Jude,  and  to  the  budding  Gnosticism  of  the  age ;  or 
from  the  mysterious  import  of  some  of  the  expressions  which 
here  occur,  lie  without  the  bounds  of  our  investigation.  Strictly 
confining  ourselves  to  the  doctrinal  statements,  we  feel  obliged 
to  declare  as  the  result  of  this  investigation,  that  the  second 
epistle  contains  absolutely  nothing  that  forbids  us  to  think  of 
Simon  Peter  as  the  writer,  and  not  a  little  on  the  contrary  which 
justifies  the  belief  in  its  Petrine  origin.  We  find  ourselves, 
consequently,  reduced  to  the  simple  alternative,  either  that 
Peter  himself  wrote  the  epistle,  or  that  an  unknown  writer,  in 
order  to  accomplish  his  particular  ends,  evidently  strove  to  be 
taken  for  our  Apostle,  and  with  this  design  imitated  his  style 
and  his  ideas  as  accurately  as  possible.  Whether  a  literary 
fiction  of  this  kind  admits  of  being  so  easily  accepted,  as  is 
maintained  on  some  sides,  and  whether  in  that  case  it  would  be 
consonant  with  the  moral  character  of  the  writer  as  exhibited 
to  us  in  this  epistle,  is  a  question,  the  answer  to  which  does  not 
belong  to  this  place.  Had  the  second  epistle  of  Peter  appeared 
as  an  anonymous  production,  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  inner 
criticism  would  have  raised  the  supposition,  in  the  view  of 
many,  to  a  very  high  degree  of  probability,  that  this  writing 
proceeded  from  none  other  than  the  Apostle  Peter. 

Comp.  on  the  doctrinal  teachings  of  the  second  epistle  of  Pe- 
ter in  connection  with  its  genuineness,  in  addition  to  MESSNER, 
I  c.  S.  54-70,  VAN  OOSTERZEE,  u  Christology  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment" bl.  162-176,  and  the  literature  there  given ;  to  which  may 
be  added  FKONMULLER,  I  c.  S.  68  sqq. ;  STEINFASS,  "  The  Second 
Epistle  of  St.  Peter"  Rostock,  1863,  and  WEISS,  u  On-  the  Petrine 
Question"  in  the  Stud.  u.  Krit,  1865  and  1866.  On  the  spread 
of  particular  writings  under  the  names  of  Apostles,  in  the  early 
ages  of  Christianity,  THIEKSCH,  "  Essay  towards  a  restoration  of 
the  historical  point  of  view"  etc.,  ErL,  1845,  S.  338  sqq.  ;  NIER- 
MELTEB,  "  The  Criticism  of  the  Tubingen  School,"  1848,  bl.  36-47. 


The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine.  147 

Questions  for  consideration. — Who  have  contested  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  second  epistle  of  Peter  on  the  ground  especially  of 
its  doctrinal  teachings? — What  peculiarities  do  the  doctrinal 
and  ethical  contents  of  our  epistle  exhibit,  as  compared  with 
the  first  ? —  How  far  may  these  peculiarities  be  explained  from 
the  particular  design  of  the  composition  and  from  the  individu- 
ality of  the  author? — The  relation  of  this  epistle  to  that  of 
Jude  and  those  of  Paul  ? — The  eschatology  of  this  epistle  com- 
pared with  the  expectations  of  profane  antiquity,  and  the  pro- 
phetic scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament. — The  second  epistle  of 
Peter,  the  crown  of  his  whole  Apostolic  testimony,  and  his 
testament  to  the  Church  and  the  world. 

§31. 
The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine. 

The  Petrine  exhibition  of  the  Gospel  stands  by  no  means 
alone  among  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  Without 
violence  to  the  peculiarity  of  each  writer,  it  agrees  in  a  remark- 
able manner  with  what  is  either  assumed  or  expressed  in  the 
Gospels  according  to  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  especially  in  the 
general  Epistles  of  James  and  Jude. 

1.  We  have  already  observed  the  many-sided  peculiarity  of 
the  Petrine  representation  of  the  Gospel.     To  this  type  attached 
itself  undoubtedly  the  faith  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  who  found 
in  Peter  both  their  guide  and  their  representative.    In  view,  how- 
ever, of  the  high  position  which  Peter  occupied  in  the  history  of 
the  Apostolic  age,  it  may  be  reasonably  assumed  in  advance 
that  among  the  sacred  writers  themselves  there  would  be  by  no 
means  wanting  men  of  kindred  spirit.     This  conjecture  passes 
into  certainty  when  we  look  at  various  parts  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  which  either  the  spirit  of  our  Apostle  manifestly  ap- 
pears, or  ideas  are  expressed  which  more  or  less  resemble  his. 

2.  This  is  preeminently  the  case  with  the  Gospel  according 
to  Mark,  in  the  contents  and  composition  of  which,  Peter,  ac- 
cording to  tradition,  exerted  an  influence,  the  nature  and  extent 
of  which  cannot  here  be  more  exactly  determined.     The  more 


148  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

philosophical  character  exhibited  in  the  Gospel  according  to 
John  is  here  wanting,  as  it  is  in  the  discourses  and  epistles  of 
our  Apostle.  The  second  Gospel  begins  at  once  with  the  bap- 
tism of  John,  to  end  with  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of 
Jesus,  and  moves  therefore  exactly  within  the  circle  marked 
out  by  Peter  himself  for  a  witness  of  the  Lord  (Acts  1,  21.  22). 
It  exhibits  the  traits  of  character  distinctly  exhibited  by  Jesus, 
as  possessing  which  Peter  loved  to  represent  him,  and  the  per- 
sonal remembrance  of  which  were  to  him  of  the  greatest  value. 
The  dramatic  force  of  the  representation,  the  varying  tone,  and 
the  rapidity  of  transition  in  the  narrative,  involuntarily  remind 
us  of  the  witness  of  the  Lord,  with  whom  in  his  discourses  and 
writings  we  have  just  become  acquainted. 

3.  Something  of  the  same  kind  may  also  be  observed  in  re- 
gard to  Matthew.     Whatever  we  may  think  of  the  perplexing 
questions  of  Introduction  which  this  Gospel  presents  to  us,  it 
cannot  be  doubted  that  it  exhibits  a  purely  Palestinian  char- 
acter, and  that  so  far  the  writer  may  be  said  to  have  a  spirit 
akin  to  Peter  much  more  than  to  Paul  or  John.     The  evident 
aim  of  the  first  Gospel  to  exhibit  Jesus  as  the  promised  Messiah, 
in  the  light  of  the  prophetic  Scriptures,  is  entirely  in  the  spirit 
of  our  Apostle.     As  in  his  preaching  of  Christ,  in  Acts  10,  38, 
he  attaches  special  importance  to  the  miracles  of  the  Lord,  so 
here  we  find  a  whole  series  of  them  brought'  together  (Matt, 
chapters  8  and  9).    Matthew,  like  Peter,  announces  the  Lord  as 
Israel's  Messiah,  and  also  like  the  latter,  without  excluding  the 
heathen.     No  where,  finally,  are  the  eschatological  discourses 
of  the  Lord,  which  to  the  Apostle  of  hope  possessed  such  a 
priceless  value,  given  so  fully  and  in  such  order  as  in  the  first 
Gospel. 

4.  Still  less  is  it  to  be  denied  that  Jude,  the  brother  of  James, 
so  far  as  he  is  known  to  us  from  his  epistle,  stands  on  the  same 
platform  with  Peter.     Whatever  conclusion  we  may  come  to  as 
to  his  person,  and  the  relation  of  this  Epistle  to  the  Second 
Epistle  of  Peter,  the  mode  of  conception  peculiar  to  Peter  is 
also  unmistakably  present  here.     As  a  witness  of  Jesus  Christ, 
Jude  also,  although  in  few  words,  manifestly  enough  places  the 
Lord  in  the  foreground.     For  Him  Christians  are  preserved  (vs. 
1") ;  He  is  the  only  Kuler  and  Lord  (vs.  4),  for  whose  compassion 


The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine.  149 

unto  everlasting  life  they  wait  (vs.  21),  and  through  whom  God 
is  to  be  glorified  in  the  Church  (vs.  25.  On  all  these  passages, 
consult  TISCHENDORF).  Thus,  Jude  builds — as  with  all  the 
apostles,  so  preeminently  Peter — upon  one  and  the  same  found- 
ation ;  although,  like  Peter,  he  rather  presupposes  and  intimates, 
than  actually  declares,  the  Divine  nature  and  dignity  of  the 
Redeemer.  The  Old  Testament  coloring  also  belongs  to  his 
teaching,  in  common  with  that  of  Peter.  Like  Peter,  he  makes 
abundant  use  of  sacred  history,  as  that  of  Sodom  (vs.  7),  of 
Moses  (vs.  9),  Balaam  (vs.  11),  and  Enoch  (vs.  14).  He  seems 
also,  in  regard  to  this  last,  to  have  drawn  upon  an  apocryphal 
writing,  which  he  accepts  as  authoritative.  The  hope  of  the 
future  is  also  brought  into  great  prominence  in  this  short  epistle, 
even  though — having  regard  to  untruth  and  unrighteousness — 
it  is  especially  contemplated  on  its  terrible  side.  Like  Peter 
(1  Pet.  1,  5),  Jude  finally  lays  especial  stress  upon  the  preserva- 
tion of  believers  unto  everlasting  life  (vs.  1,  21.  24). 

5.  Especially,  however,  must  we  here  mention  the  Epistle  of 
James,  which  fills,  indeed,  no  large  place,  but,  nevertheless,  a 
highly  important  one,  in  the  first  development  of  Christian 
doctrine.  The  doctrine  of  this  witness  of  the  Lord  contains 
also — besides  that  which  it  has  in  common  with  that  of  Peter — 
much  that  is  peculiar  to  itself,  especially  as  regards  the  exhibi- 
tion of  the  person  and  work  of  the  Lord.  The  actual  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  here  only  twice  mentioned  (1,  1 ;  2,  1),  although 
in  several  other  places  it  may  at  least  be  questioned  whether  it 
is  not  alluded  to  (2,  7 ;  5,  6.  7.  8.  14).  On  the  great  historic 
facts  in  the  life  and  saving  work  of  Christ  he  preserves  an  en- 
tire silence.  The  high-priestly  work  of  our  Lord  also  falls  into 
the  background ;  even  His  royal  glory  is  spoken  of  only  in 
passing  (2,  1);  but  louder  than  elsewhere  we  here  catch  the 
faithful  echo  of  His  prophetic  word.  Many  an  exhortation  of 
the  Epistle  of  James  is,  as  it  were,  an  echo  of  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount,  (e.  g.,  3,  11.  12 ;  4,  4 ;  5, 12),  and  proves  how  deeply 
the  author  was  penetrated  with  the  spirit  of  his  glorified 
Brother.  In  the  conception  of  God,  it  is  principally  the  moral 
attributes  of  God  upon  which  stress  is  laid ;  even  His  un- 
changeableness  is  not  only  a  characteristic,  but  a  virtue,  (1, 13- 
17).  Not  less  peculiar  is  the  conception  here  found  in  relation 


150  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

to  sin  on  the  one  hand,  and  grace  on  the  other.  James  lays 
great  stress  upon  the  fact  that  man  was  created  originally  after 
God's  image  (3,  9  ;  comp.  Gen.  9,  6) ;  but  none  the  less  does  he 
expressly  affirm  that  sin  is  absolutely  universal  (3,  2),  and, 
above  all,  that  in  every  case  it  is  man's  own  fault  (1,  13-18). 
That  he  does  not  ignore  the  demoniacal  origin  of  moral  evil  is 
clear  (2, 19  ;  3,  15  ;  4,  7) ;  but  the  arising  of  sin  within  the  man 
at  a  particular  moment  he  describes  especially  on  its  psycholog- 
ical side  (1,  14.  15),  as  also  in  the  word,  sin  (efym^T/a),  he  thinks 
rather  of  the  sinful  act  than  of  the  sinful  principle  (with  him 
<*TU#U(«/«).  On  that  account,  he  rather  combats  specific  sins, 
e.  g.,  those  of  the  tongue  (3,  1—12),  or  of  the  rich  against  the 
poor  (5,  1-6),  than  (as,  for  instance,  Paul,  in  Eom.  7,)  probes  to 
its  depths  the  discord  within  the  sinful  heart.  But  as  this  sin 
brings  forth  death,  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  word  (1,  15  ;  5,  20), 
grace  is  revealed — it  is  true  in  its  forgiving  (5,  15),  but — espe- 
cially in  its  sanctifying  and  new  creating  (1,  18)  power.  Grace 
is  received  through  faith,  but  only  through  such  a  faith  as  is 
proved  genuine  by  works  (2,  14-26).  The  peculiar  sense  in 
which  the  words  justification^  faith,  and  works  are  used  by  James 
as  compared  with  Paul,  serves  as  a  clear  proof  that  his  object  is 
not  to  wage  war  against  the  ideas  themselves  which  are  found 
in  the  writings  of  that  Apostle,  but  to  place  a  bridle  upon  the 
one-sided  Paulinism  which  showed  itself  in  his  vicinity.  One 
must  certainly  share  Luther's  antipathy  for  this  "epistle  of 
straw,"  before  asserting  with  him  that  "the  Holy  Ghost  allowed 
Sanct  James  to  stumble  a  little."  James,  no  less  than  Paul, 
recognizes  a  faith  which  is  nothing  less  than  a  firm  confidence 
of  the  heart  (1,  6-8) ;  but  it  is  here  not  so  much  an  opposition 
of  sin  and  grace  as  of  knowing  and  doing  (comp.  John  13,  17), 
which  dominates  his  whole  mode  of  thinking. 

In  regard,  moreover,  to  his  particular  view  of  the  essence  of 
Christianity,  it  is  presented  unquestionably  in  its  purely  reli- 
gious and  especially  its  ethical  side.  We  see  how,  in  this 
short  epistle,  he  exhorts  repeatedly  to  prayer,  even  for  others 
(1,  5 ;  4,  2.  3 ;  5,  13-18) ;  an  exercise  of  the  Christian  life,  to 
which  is  assured,  according  to  James,  not  merely  a  psycholog- 
ical influence,  but  also  a  direct  answer  (1,  5-8;  5,  14-18). 
He  brings,  as  a  rule,  the  commandments  of  the  second  table 


The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine.  151 

into  greater  prominence  than  those  of  the  first ;  and  we  may 
saj  that  the  text  and  ground-tone  of  all  his  exhortations  is 
contained  in  a  single  sentence  (1, 19) ;  just  as  1  Pet.  1.  13  is 
the  basis  of  all  the  exhortations  which  follow.  Moral  beauty 
is  that  at  which  James,  above  all,  aims  (rete/o?,  1,  4.  25 ;  3,  2), 
and  Christianity  is  the  great  means  of  bringing  man  to  this 
perfection,  and  thus  raising  him  to  the  highest  rank  (1,  18). 
In  self-denial  and  love  to  one's  neighbor  consists  especially 
the  true  religion  here  commended  (1,  27).  The  Gospel  itself 
is,  according  to  his  view,  a  perfect  law  of  liberty,  whose  pre- 
cepts are  all  inseparably  connected,  and  governed  by  the  great 
principle  of  love  (2,  8-13).  The  whole  Epistle  of  James  bears, 
consequently,  rather  a  practical  than  a  dogmatic  character,  and 
contains  (partly  in  highly  poetic  language)  a  moral  teaching 
which  attaches  itself  partly  to  the  utterances  of  the  Lord,  partly 
to  the  precepts  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  and  partly,  also — 
what  is  nowhere  else  met  with  in  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament — to  those  of  the  son  of  Sirach.  It  is  the  task  of 
Biblical  Introduction  to  find  the  key  to  this  and  other  pecu- 
liarities of  this  beautiful  Epistle,  in  the  individuality  of  the 
writer,  in  the  circumstances  of  his  readers,  and  in  the  peculiar 
aim  of  his  writing.  The  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment can  only  show  that  here,  within  a  small  compass,  is  laid 
up  a  rare  wealth  of  original,  deeply  Christian  thoughts,  which 
show  indeed  the  unquestionable  independence  of  the  writer, 
but  also  his  spiritual  affinity  with  Peter. 

6.  In  a  Christological  aspect,  it  is  less  rich  than  that  of  Peter, 
and  even  than  that  of  Jude ;  but  the  fundamental  conception  of 
the  person  of  the  Lord  belongs  to  the  same  circle  of  thoughts, 
and  the  Christian  life,  as  it  is  here  and  there  described,  shows  an 
unmistakable  relationship.  The  express  mention  of  regenera- 
tion through  the  word  (1,  18 ;  comp.  1  Pet.  1,  23),  the  powerful 
exhortation  to  moral  perfection  (3,  1 ;  comp.  1  Pet.  1,  15),  the 
magnifying  of  Christian  joy,  even  under  the  severest  trials,  yea, 
on  account  of  them  (1,  2-4 ;  comp.  1  Pet.  1,  6-9 ;  4,  14),  and 
not  less  of  compassion  and  love,  in  connection  with  the  future 
judgment  (2,  13 ;  5,  20;  comp.  1  Pet.  4,  8),  is  common  to  both. 
We  may  say  that  the  twofold  tendency  of  the  two  Epistles  of 
Peter,  consolation  and  exhortation,  is,  in  the  Epistle  of  James, 


152  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

blended  in  one.  The  Old  Testament  character,  also,  of  the 
Epistles  of  Peter  will  not  be  sought  in  vain  in  the  Epistle  of 
James.  Entirety  in  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  prophets  is,  for 
example,  the  mention  of  the  jealousy  (4,  6)  of  God :  also  the 
appellation  Jehovah  Sabaoth  (5,  4),  which  is  found  only  here  in 
the  New  Testament,  is  in  this  respect  noteworthy.  "James 
conceives  of  the  old  under  new  forms"  (NEANDER).  Only  in 
one  respect  is  there  an  essential  difference :  Peter  conceives  of 
the  Gospel  as,  above  all,  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy ;  James,  on 
the  other  hand,  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  law.  •  Finally,  as 
regards  the  hope  which  characterizes  both  epistles,  the  more 
calm  and  practical  James,  though  he  has  not  the  longing  desire 
of  the  ardent  Peter,  has  this  however,  in  common  with  him, 
that  he  also  constantly  directs  the  eye  from  the  present  to  the 
future,  and  employs  the  approaching  coming  of  the  Lord,  as  a 
powerful  motive  to  a  Christian  spirit  (5,  7.  8).  His  eye  also  is 
fixed  upon  the  crown  of  life  (1,  12 ;  comp.  1  Pet.  5,  4),  which 
is  promised  to  the  faithful  warrior,  but  he  has  also  regard  to  the 
just  retribution  prepared  for  the  oppressor  of  the  poor  brother 
(5,  1-6).  We  must  divorce  expressions  like  these  last  entirely 
from  their  connection,  and  regard  them  with  very  prejudiced 
eyes,  to  find  here  no  higher  conception  than  that  of  quite  a 
flat  specimen  of  Ebionitism  (REUSS). 

Compare,  in  addition  to  SCHMID,  REUSS,  and  MESSNER,  on 
this  subject,  especially  LANGE,  Commentary,  Introcl.  to  Epp.  of 
James  and  Jude ;  DE  PRESSENSE,  Early  Years  of  Christianity, 
pp.  207-219 ;  BONIFAS,  1.  c.  pp.  27  and  following ;  STIER,  "  The 
Epistle  of  Jude,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,r  Berl.  1850. 

Questions  for  consideration. — Origin  and  extent  of  the  Petrine 
element  in  the  Second  Gospel. — Peter  and  Matthew. — The  re- 
lation between  the  Epistle  of  Jude  and  the  Second  Epistle  of 
Peter  in  regard  to  their  doctrinal  contents. — How  is  the  use 
of  an  apocryphal  writing  in  the  Epistle  of  Jude  to  be  explained, 
and  what  judgment  are  we  to  form  as  to  its  citation  ? — Connec- 
tion between  the  Epistle  of  James  and  the  Synoptical  Gospels. — 
Influence  of  Solomon,  and  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach,  upon  the 
contents  and  form  of  this  Epistle. — The  peculiarity  of  its  rep- 
resentation of  faith  and  works. — "What  is  the  sense  of  James  1, 
27  ? — The  doctrine  of  the  oath  in  James  in  connection  with 


Result  and  Transition.  153 

that  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. — Does  James  write  polemi- 
cally?— Are  there  to  be  found  in  his  Epistle  traces  also  of 
Ebionitish  ideas  ? — How  are  the  opposite  judgments  concerning 
this  epistle  in  earlier  and  later  times  to  be  explained  ? 

§32. 
Result  and  Transition. 

The  contents  and  form  of  the  Petrine  system  of  doctrines 
correspond  entirely  to  that  which  was  to  be  expected  of  our 
Apostle  as  elsewhere  known  to  us,  and  bear  the  unmistakable 
stamp  of  a  rich  originality.  Although  it  is  not  to  be  denied 
that  between  the  ideas  especially  which  are  to  be  found  in  the 
Apostle's  first  epistle  and  several  epistles  of  Paul,  there  is  a 
certain  affinity,  yet  the  Petrine  theology  is  by  no  means  a 
feeble  copy  of  the  Pauline,  but  preserves  alongside  the  other 
its  independent  character ;  always,  however,  in  such  a  sense  that, 
in  the  riches  and  depth  of  its  doctrinal  development,  it  stands 
not  above,  but  below  the  Paulina 

1.  In  summing  up  at  the  end  of  this  section,  the  total  im- 
pression received,  we  find  a  confirmation  in  many  respects  of 
what  we  have  previously  (§  25)  said,  concerning  the  agreement 
of  the  Petrine  system  of  doctrine  with  what  we  have  learnt 
from  other  sources  as  to  the  individuality  of  this  Apostle. 
This  agreement,  rightly  understood  and  used,  affords  an  unex- 
ceptionable contribution  to  the  defence  of  the  historic  character 
of  the  discourses,  and  the  genuineness  of  the  epistles  ascribed  to 
Peter.     But,  at  the  same  time,  a  glance  at  the  kindred  systems 
of  doctrine  has  convinced  us  of  the  great  influence  which  the 
Gospel  of  Peter  exerted  within  his  immediate  circle,  and  conse- 
quently, also,  so  far  as  it  can  be  inferred  therefrom,  of  the  power 
of  his  personality.     His  Gospel  also  forms  an  organic  whole, 
and  by  no  means  a  mere  aggregate  of  incoherent  thoughts. 

2.  It  is  true  we  find  in  several  of  the  epistles  of  Paul,  es- 
pecially in  those  to  the  Romans  and  Ephesians,  expressions  by 
which  we  are  quite  involuntarily  reminded  of  the  first  epistle 
of  Peter.     (Comp.  e.  g.,  1  Pet  1,  3,  sqq.  with  Eph.  1,  3  ;  1  Peter 

10 


154  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

1,  6-9  with  Eom.  5,  3-5 ;  1  Peter  2,  6-7  with  Eom.  9,  33.)  The 
investigation  as  to  the  causes  of  this  remarkable  phenomenon 
belongs  to  the  department  of  Introduction.  But  little  as  this 
phenomenon  on  which  so  much  has  been  said,  justifies  the 
assertion  of  the  Tubingen  school  that  the  first  epistle  of  Peter 
may  be  styled  only  an  apology  for  Paulinism,  palmed  off  by  an 
unknown  adherent  of  Paul  upon  the  Petrine  Christians,  still  less 
does  it  in  any  way  affect  the  originality  of  the  Petrine  conception 
of  the  Grospel,  even  in  the  (highly  improbable)  case  that  this 
agreement  must  be  explained  by  the  use  made,  on  the  part  of 
Peter,  of  the  Pauline  epistles.  In  Peter  we  find  not  the  echo  of 
another,  but  an  independent,  clear,  and  powerful  voice  of  his  own. 

3.  By  this,  however,  we  do  not  intend  to  say  that  the  Petrine 
system  of  doctrines  comes  up  to,  or  towers  above,  the  Pauline 
in  riches,  depth,  and  power.  The  contrary  will  soon  be  mani- 
fest from  a  survey  of  the  latter.  Fundamental  thoughts  of  the 
Gospel  of  Paul,  as,  for  example,  the  doctrine  of  justification 
through  faith,  are  not  found  in  this  form  in  Peter.  Truths  and 
duties,  of  which  both  remind  us,  are  treated  by  Paul  more 
deeply  and  in  a  more  many-sided  way  than  by  Peter,  whose 
literary  remains  are  also  much  smaller  than  those  of  his  fellow 
Apostle.  For  one  Petrine  idea  which  is  not  touched  by  Paul, 
there  stand  probably  ten  Pauline  ones  which  are  passed  over  in 
silence  by  Peter.  But  much  which  is  more  fully  explained  by 
Paul  has  been  already  hinted  at  by  Peter ;  and  so  far  we  may 
truly  say,  "Peter  belongs  to  the  same  school  with  James,  but 
he  has  passed  the  point  of  view  of  the  School  of  the  Law,  and 
presents  to  us  already,  the  point  of  view  of  Paul"  (BoNlFAs). 
The  best  proof  of  the  justice  of  this  remark  will  be  the  treat- 
ment, in  the  following  chapter,  of  the  Pauline  theology. 

Comp.  WEISS,  1.  c.  S.  375  ff. ;  MESSNER,  I  c.  S.  55 ;  BAUB, 
I  c.  S.  217-297. 

Questions  for  consideration.  —  In  what  respect  do  single  ex- 
pressions of  James  and  Peter  correspond  in  subject-matter  and 
form  with  those  of  Paul  ? — Can  we  fairly  maintain  that  the 
epistles  of  James  and  Peter  show  a  determined  attempt  at 
reconciliation  between  Paulinism  and  Judaism  ? — To  what  ex- 
tent does  the  Petrine  theology,  regarded  as  a  whole,  rise  above 
the  Ebionitism  of  the  Apostolic  age  ? 


The  Pauline  Theology.  155 

CHAPTER  II. 

THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY. 

§33. 

Preliminary  Survey. 

The  Pauline  doctrinal  system  embraces  the  rich  contents  of 
all  that  which  the  Apostle  Paul  himself  has  called  his  Gospel, 
so  far  as  this  is  known  to  us  from  the  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  especially  from  his  own  epistles.  The  intro- 
ductory survey  will  delineate  roughly  the  leading  thought,  the 
character,  the  source,  the  value,  and  the  history  of  the  Pauline 
theology,  in  order  at  the  close  to  give  an  answer  to  the  question, 
how  its  treatment  is  to  be  conducted. 

1.  A  much  richer  field  than  is  to  be  found  in  the  Petrine 
theology  opens  itself  to  us  in  the  Pauline.     As  the  former 
makes  us  acquainted  with  the  Gospel  which  was  proclaimed  to 
the  Jewish  Christians,  so  this  more  especially  makes  known  to 
us  the  glad  tidings  which  Paul  proclaimed  in  the  Gentile  world. 
With  all  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  has 
in  common  with  that  of  a  Peter  or  a  John,  there  is  manifested, 
at  the  same  time,  so  much  that  is  peculiar  to  himself,  that  Paul 
was  fully  justified  in  speaking  as  he  does  of  his  Gospel  (Eom. 
2,  16,  and  elsewhere). 

2.  The  Gospel  of  Paul  is  made  known  to  us,  not  indeed  ex- 
clusively, but  yet  principally  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament.     Besides  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  (3, 15. 16) 
the  Book  of  Acts  (13, 16-41 ;  14, 15-17 ;  16,  31 ;  17,  3, 16-31 ; 
20,  18-35 ;  22,  3-21 ;  23,  6 ;  24,  14-25 ;  26,  6-23 ;  28,  17-28) 
makes  us  especially  acquainted  with  the  main  contents  of  this 
Gospel.     But,  above  all,  it  is  the  thirteen  Epistles  which  have 
come  down  to  us  under  his  name,  which — some  more,  others 
less — afford  us  highly  important  materials  for  the  prosecution 
of  this  investigation. 


156  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  question,  on  what  ground  we  ascribe  all  these  epistles 
to  Paul,  belongs  to  the  province  of  Criticism  and  Introduction. 
In  this  place  the  assurance  must  be  accepted  that,  in  our  esti- 
mation, the  genuineness  of  the  whole  thirteen  is  certainly  to  be 
acknowledged,  although  we  admit  that  this  genuineness,  in  the 
case  of  some,  can  be  more  satisfactorily  defended  than  in  the 
case  of  others.  Of  the  authenticity  of  the  greater  part,  a  power- 
ful defence  has  been  quite  recently  put  forth ;  of  others,  the 
authenticity  has  never,  on  scientific  grounds,  been  disputed. 
We  adopt,  in  this  respect,  without  reserve  the  stand-point 
which,  until  within  the  last  few  years,  was  accepted  by  almost 
all  theologians,  whether  of  a  more  conservative  or  more  advan- 
ced school,  both  within  our  own  country  and  beyond  it ;  and 
we  continue  to  hold  it,  not  because  the  new  is  unknown  to  us, 
but  because,  in  our  view,  uncritical  and  arbitrary  speculation 
constantly  usurps  the  place  of  thorough  and  impartial  science. 
While,  for  this  reason,  we  do  not  entirely  except  from  our 
examination  any  one  of  the  Pauline  epistles,  they  must  natu- 
rally— at  least  in  regard  to  the  most  important  points — be  con- 
sulted in  that  order  in  which  they  were  probably  written. 
During  a  period  of  about  twelve  years,  which  lay  between  the 
composition  of  the  earliest  and  the  latest  epistle,  the  spiritual 
development  of  Paul  was  certainly  not  stationary.  These 
epistles  are  probably  to  be  arranged  in  the  following  manner  : — 
1.  The  two  to  the  Thessalonians  ;  2.  The  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians ;  3.  The  two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians ;  4.  The  Epis- 
tle to  the  Romans;  5.  Those  to  the  Ephesians,  Colossians, 
Philemon,  and  Philippians ;  6.  The  Pastoral  Epistles. 

It  cannot  by  any  means  be  shown  that  another  Gospel  is  to  be 
read  in  those  epistles  the  genuineness  of  which  has  been  denied, 
or  held  suspected,  by  critics  of  the  Old  or  New  Tubingen 
school,  than  in  the  four  which  the  first-named  have  magnani- 
mously left  to  us.  It  is  on  this  account  not  necessary  on  every 
point  to  consult  these  four  before  listening  to  the  testimony  of 
either  of  the  others.  On  disputed  points,  however,  of  special 
importance,  we  cannot,  at  the  present  time,  entirely  neglect  this 
distinction.  Besides  this,  also,  an  especial  value  in  regard  to 
specific  subjects  is  to  be  attached  to  particular  epistles  above 
others :  e.  g.,  for  soteriology,  to  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and 


The  Pauline  Theology.  157 

Galatians ;  for  ecclesiology,  to  that  to  the  Ephesians ;  for  escha- 
tology,  to  those  to  the  Corinthians,  &c. 

3.  In  order  to  become  at  home  in  the  Pauline  theology,  it  is 
of  importance  to  discover  the  ground-thought  which,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  shapes  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  this  Apostle.     It 
is  the  doctrine  of  justification  through  faith  which,  more  than 
anything  else,  according  to  Paul,  makes  the  Gospel  to  be  God's 
power  unto  salvation  (Rom.  1,  16-17).     Not  only  in  the  epis- 
tles to  the  Romans  and  Galatians,  but  also  in  that  to  the  Philip- 
pians  (3,  4r-ll),  this  truth  is  expressed,   evidently  as  a  favorite 
one,  and  in  a  form,  which  links  it  at  once  with  the  language  of 
the  Old  Testament  (Gen.  15,  6)  and  with  the  teaching  of  the 
Lord  Himself  (Luke  18,  14),  a  form  also  especially  familiar  and 
attractive  to  the  Jewish  Christians.     The  utter  impossibility  of 
justification  on  the  ground  of  the  works  of  law,  and  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  justification  by  grace  in  Christ,  this  is  the  main 
thought  which  Paul  is  never  weary  of  expressing  in  manifold 
forms,  and  applying  to  every  variety  of  necessities  and  condi- 
tions. 

4.  By  this  main  thought  of  the  Pauline  theology,  the  pecu- 
liar character  of  the  form  and  subject-matter  is  at  the  same 
time  determined.     The  character  of  the  subject-matter  is  in 
general  soteriological ;   salvation  in   Christ  is  here,   as  far  as 
possible,  presented  for  contemplation  on  all  sides,  while  the 
great  antithesis  of  sin  and  grace  is  ever  anew  placed  in  the 
foreground.     Still  more  decidedly  this  doctrine  may  be  said  to 
bear  an  anthropological  character.     Paul  does  not,  like  Peter, 
take  his  point  of  departure  in  the  prophetic  Scriptures,  or,  like 
John,  in  the  person  of  the  Saviour,  but  in  Man,  with  his  deep- 
est wants,  as  they  are  awakened  by  the  law,  but  can  be  satisfied 
only  by  the  Gospel.     And  this  satisfaction,  according  to  the 
genuine  universalism  of  the  Apostle,  is  designed  and  attainable, 
not  merely  for  some,  but  for  all.     The  fact  that  Christianity  is 
the  religion  for  the  world,  although  ignored  by  none  of  his 
fellow-witnesses,  is  yet  declared  by  none  more  powerfully  than 
by  him  (comp.  Acts  13,  38.  39 ;  Rom.  3,  21-24).     The  form  also 
in  which  all  this  is  expressed  by  him,  is  in  the  highest  degree 
striking  and  appropriate ;  for  in  point  of  form  the  whole  Paul- 
ine theology  is  decidedly  antithetical.     Law  and  Gospel,  works 


158  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

and  faith,  flesh,  and  spirit,  death  and  life,  condemnation  and 
justification,  form  an  impressive  series  of  powerful  antitheses. 
The  key  to  this  peculiar  character  of  his  whole  doctrinal 
system,  both  as  to  subject-matter  and  to  form,  is  to  be  found  in 
the  experience  of  the  Apostle's  own  life. 

5.  The  source  of  the  Pauline  theology  was  partly,   but  not 
entirely,  the  same  as  that  of  his  fellow-witnesses.     From  2  Cor. 
5,  16  (xutrd  <7<iox«,  after  a  fleshly  standard),  it  would  seem  that  he 
had  not  personally  known  Christ ;  certainly  he  had  not  (like 
the  Twelve)  held  converse  with  Him  and  received  instruction 
from  Him.     He  himself  says  that  he  received  not  his  Gospel  of 
man,  or  by  man,   and  points  to  special  revelation  from  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  source  of  his  teaching  (Gal.  1,  1-17).     The  revela- 
tion granted  to  him  at  and  after  his  conversion  was  subsequently 
continued   from  time  to  time  in  regard  to   particular  points 
(1  Cor.  7,  25 ;  Bph.  3,  3 ;  1  Thess.  4,  15).     The  Christian  tradi- 
tion also  was,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  known  to  him  (1  Cor. 

11,  23  naqilnfiov).     The  revelation  of  God  in  nature,  history 
and  conscience,    had  been  attentively  observed  by  him  (Kom. 
I.  u) ;  and  even  his  education  by  Gamaliel  (Acts  22,  3),  had 
not  been  by  any  means  without  influence  on  his  subsequent 
mode  of  thinking.     Accurately  acquainted  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  the  peculiar  mode  of  interpreting  Scripture  prevalent 
in  his  day  (comp.  Gal.  4,  24),   and  even  not  unacquainted  with 
Greek  literature  (e.  g.,  Acts  17,  28 ;  Tit.  1,  12 ;  1  Cor.   15,  33), 
he  could  perceive  the  truth  more  clearly  than  many  others,  and 
express  it  with  greater  force.      All  this,  however,   would  not 
have  made  Paul  to  be  Paul,  had  not  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
been  bestowed  upon  him  in  rich  measure  (1  Cor.  2,  13 ;  7,  40 ; 

12,  7),  through  which  the  mystery  of  the  Gospel  was  revealed 
to  him  in  immediate  connection  with  his  own  inner  need  and 
his  own  life-experience.     Consequently,  we  may  say  that  the 
sanctified   personality   of  Paul — or,   traced  back   to   its  first 
beginning,  his  conversion — is  the  key  to  his  whole  doctrine. 
The  theology  of  Paul  was,  in  the  deepest  and  richest  sense  of 
the  word,  the  theology  of  experience. 

6.  The  value  of  the  Pauline  theology  has  been  sometimes 
ignored,  sometimes  over-estimated ;  the  latter,  in  the  case  of 
the  Tubingen  school,  which  has  discovered  in  Paul  the  father 


The  Pauline  Theology.  159 

of  Christian  universalism ;  the  former  by  the  vulgar  Rational- 
ism, in  placing  the  zealot  of  Tarsus  far  beneath,  yea,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Eabbi  of  Nazareth,  a  position  to  which  the  "modern 
theology  "  is  in  danger  of  sinking,  whenever  its  idle  attempt  to 
make  Paul  the  apologist  of  its  liberality  and  negation  turns  out 
to  be  hopeless.  Avoiding  both  extremes,  it  is  certain  that 
the  Pauline  theology  is  of  the  highest  value,  partly  in  itself, 
in  that  it  contains  a  many-sided,  profound,  faithful,  and  power- 
ful presentation  of  the  Gospel ;  partly  in  comparison  with  that 
of  others,  whom  he  either  surpasses  (Peter  and  James),  or  for 
whom  in  turn  he  prepares  the  way  (John) ;  partly,  finally,  on 
account  of  the  great  influence  which  the  testimony  of  Paul  has 
exerted  in  the  course  of  ages,  and  still  continues  to  exert 
Though  he  was  not  the  founder  of  Christianity  (1  Cor.  1,  13), 
he  has  been  the  founder  of  the  Grentile  Church,  and  the  spirit- 
ual father  of  millions  (1  Cor.  4,  15).  Augustine  and  Luther 
sat  at  his  feet ;  his  spirit  lives  again  in  Protestantism,  and  even 
the  little  which  the  criticism  of  the  present  day  allows  to  be 
genuinely  Pauline,  is  sufficient  to  exhibit  the  follv  of  the 
naturalistic  unbelief  which  decks  itself  with  the  name  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

7.  It  is  on  this  account  gratifying  that  the  history  of  the 
scientific  treatment  of  the  Pauline  theology,  although  dating 
only  from  the  beginning  of  this  century,  is  by  no  means  insig- 
nificant. Without  saying  anything  in  this  place  of  the  earlier 
and  less  successful  attempts,  we  draw  attention  to  the  merito- 
rious work  of  L.  USTEKI,  Paulin.  Lehrbegr.,  sixth  edition,  1851. 
Himself  a  pupil  of  Schleiermacher — of  whom,  by  the  talent 
displayed  in  this  work,  he  shows  himself  a  worthy  successor — 
he  has  penetrated  more  deeply  than  any  of  his  predecessors 
into  the  spirit  of  the  Apostle.  Deserving  also  of  attention  is 
the  examination  of  the  Pauline  theology  in  the  second  part  of 
NEANDER'S  History  of  the  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Christian 
Church,  and  that  of  F.  C.  BAUR  in  his  Paulus,  Stuttgard,  1845, 
S.  505-670.  The  writings  of  DAHNE  (1835)  and  LUTZELBER- 
GER  (1839),  on  the  Doctrinal  System  of  Paul,  will  not  bear 
comparison  with  the  three  just  named.  At  the  same  time, 
besides  what  is  contained  in  the  writings,  so  frequently  cited, 
of  SCHMID,  MESSNER,  and  BEUSS,  more  or  less  of  attention  has 


160  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

been  devoted  to  the  matter  and  manner  of  Paul's  teaching,  in 
the  treatment  of  the  history  of  the  Apostolic  age  by  LECHLEK, 
SCHAFF,  DE  PRESSENSE,  RITZSCHL  (second  edition),  and  others. 
Among  our  Dutch  theologians,  Dr.   I.  DA  COSTA'S  Paulus  (2 
parts,  Leiden,   1846,  1847)  is  especially  worthy  of  mention. 
The  theologians,  also,  of  the  Groningen  school,  in  the  first  vol- 
umes of  Waarheid  in  Liefde  (1837  and  following),   with  differ- 
ent writers  of  the  Leyden  and  Utrecht  schools,  have  made 
contributions  to  the  understanding  of  single  parts  of  the  Pauline 
system,  of  which  we  shall  presently  speak. 

8.  After  a  glance  at  so  many  examples — partly  warning, 
partly  encouraging  —  the  question  as  to  the  best  manner  of 
dealing  with  the  Pauline  doctrinal  system  cannot  be  difficult  to 
answer.  The  ground-thought  of  the  Apostle's  teaching  already 
mentioned,  determines  at  the  same  time  the  course  of  our 
investigation,  which  naturally  attaches  itself  to  his  own  state- 
ment, Rom.  3,  21.  22.  We  must  especially  have  regard  to  the 
Apostle's  distinction  of  the  time  before  Christ  and  after  Christ, 
and  must  necessarily  occupy  ourselves  for  a  much  longer  period 
with  the  latter  than  with  the  former.  We  inquire,  consequently, 
first  what  he  testifies  of  humanity  and  the  individual  man, 
out  of  Christ,  and  then  what  he  testifies  of  both  in  and  through 
Christ.  When,  after  taking  into  account,  as  far  as  possible  or 
necessary,  the  chronological  succession  of  his  teachings,  we 
have  examined  them  in  relation  to  one  another,  and  have 
brought  them  into  a  compact  whole,  we  shall — as  at  the  end  of 
the  previous  division  of  our  subject — proceed  to  examine  the 
kindred  cycles  of  doctrine. 

Compare  on  Paul  and  the  Pauline  theology  in  general,  be- 
sides the  oft-named  works  of  SCHMID,  REUSS,  MESSNER,  BAUK, 
and  others,  the  consultation  of  which,  even  without  constant 
reiteration,  is  tacitly  recommended  for  all  the  following  sections, 
especially  the  article  Paulus,  by  LANGE,  in  HERZOG,  as  also  the 
General  Introduction  to  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.  Also  A.  MONOD,  St.  Paul,  Five  Discourses;  Cony- 
beare  and  Howson,  Life  and  Letters  of  St.  Paul;  SYMAR,  "the 
Theology  of  St.  Paul  exhibited,"  Freib.  im.  Br.  1864.  (R.C.); 
HAUSRATH,  "  Paul  the  Apostle  of  Jesus;  TRIP,  "  Paul  according 
to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles"  Leid.  1866.  On  the  genuineness 


The  Pauline   Theology.  161 

of  the  Thirteen  Epistles,  SCHOLTEN,  "Introduction  to  the  N.  T." 
Leid.  1856.  On  the  Gospel  of  Paul,  a  Latin  Dissertatio  of  J. 
VAN  LOENEN,  Gron.,  1863. 

Questions  for  consideration. — What  does  Paul  mean  by  his 
Gospel,  Rom'.  2,  16;  16,  25;  2  Tim.  2,  8?— What  knowledge 
of  Paulinism,  beyond  that  derived  from  the  New  Testament, 
can  we  draw  from  the  early  Christian  literature  ?  Is  the  Paul 
of  the  Acts  and  of  the  Epistles  the  same  ? — What  is  the  sense 
of  2  Cor.  5,  16?— What  of  Gal.  1,  16?— What  of  1  Cor.  11,  23? 
To  what  extent  was  Paul  experimental  ? — In  what  relation  does 
Paul  place  himself  to  his  fellow  Apostles  ? — How  is  the  great 
influence  of  the  Pauline  theology  to  be  explained? — General 
survey  and  criticism  of  some  other  divisions  and  modes  of 
treatment  of  the  subject. 


FIRST  DIVISION. 
MANKIND  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL  MAN,  BEFOEE  AND  OUT  OF  CHRIST. 

§34. 
The  Heathen  and  Jewish    World. 

According  to  the  teaching  of  Paul,  the  whole  heathen  world 
lies  sunk  in  a  condition  of  godlessness  and  immorality  which 
can  neither  be  extenuated  nor  excused,  and  which  must,  there- 
fore fear  and  endure  God's  righteous  judgment.  Although  the 
Jewish  world  was  originally  irradiated  by  purer  light,  it  stands 
in  a  moral  respect  so  little  above  the  other,  that  it  also  deserves 
the  same  judgment.  Since  both,  consequently,  are  under  sin, 
the  whole  world  is  guilty  before  God,  and  absolutely  unable 
to  justify  itself  in  His  sight. 

1.  Although  the  misery  of  the  individual  man  and  of  the 
race  before  and  out  of  Christ  is  either  presupposed  or  actually 
expressed  by  all  the  Apostles,  yet  no  one  has  given  so  full  a 
description  of  this  condition  as  the  Apostle  Paul.  His  exten- 


162  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

sive  knowledge  of  the  world  and  of  men,  combined  with  the 
personal  experience  of  his  life,  qualified  him  for  this  work ; 
and  his  object — to  prove  that  the  Gospel  was  absolutely  indis- 
pensable— could  scarcely  be  better  attained.  The  locus  classicus 
on  this  point  is  Rom.  1,  18-3,  20,  with  which  must  especially 
be  compared  Acts  15,  15-17 ;  17,  24-29. 

2.  Heathenism  is,  in  the  view  of  the  Apostle,  by  no  means 
merely  a  lower  stage  of  the  religious  life,  but  in  its  origin  and 
growth  the  consequence  of  a  most  melancholy  defection  from 
God  ;  for  the  heathen  had  the  capacity  for  recognizing  God,  and 
even  to  a  certain  extent  have  actually  recognized  Him  (Rom.  1, 
18-21).     He  revealed  himself  to  them,  not  only  through  the 
works  of  nature,  but  also  in  the  original  light  of  conscience 
(Rom.  2,  14,  15 ;  comp.  Acts  14,  17).     In  consequence  of  this, 
they  possessed  some  natural  acquaintance  with  God,  and  were 
conscious  of  that  which  God  demands  (Rom.  1,  32).     Notwith- 
standing all  his  degradation,  man  was,  in  the  ^  words  of  one  of 
their  own  poets,  of  Divine  descent,  and  felt,  as  such,  an  obscure 
but  powerful  impulse  to  seek  Him  in  whom  the  true  foundation 
of  his  being  lay  (Acts  17,  27.  28).     The  Apostle  does  justice 
to  the  aesthetical  worth  of  heathenism,  as  well  as  its  religious 
aspiration  (Acts  17,  22.  23) ;  but  beneath  this  transparent  robe 
he  sees  a  corruption  whose  depth,  with  firm  hand,  he  probes 
and  lays  bare. 

3.  Heathenism,  which  prides  itself  upon  its  wisdom,  is  the 
fruit  of  a  darkened  understanding ;  and  this  blinding  of  the 
understanding  has  its  source  in  a  heart  estranged  from  God 
(Rom.  1,  21 ;  Eph.  4,  18).     The  estrangement  of  the  heart  first 
became  manifest  in  the  inexcusable  neglect  of  Him.     It  refused 
to  praise  and  glorify  God,  and  through  unrighteousness  forci- 
bly restrained  the  operation  of  the  truth  (Rom.  1,  18,  xcn£x°VT*s 
xty  tiMfleiav.)     Having  thus  gone  out  of  the  way,  men  began  to 
contend  about  the  truth  which  the  darkened  eye  could  no  lon- 
ger clearly  see,  and  attained  to  the  climax  of  folly,  which  in 
turn  was  made  manifest  in  the  most  terrible  transgression.     In 
the  estimation  of  Paul,  the  highly-lauded  heathenism  is  nothing 
but  a  deification  of  nature  (Rom.  1,  21-25) ;  the  perversion  of 
creatures  into  objects  of  idolatrous  worship,  i.  e.,  the  theoretical 
and  practical  denial  of  God ;  godlessness  in  the  garb  of  religion. 


The  Heathen  and  Jewish  World.  163 

4.  Sin  necessarily  brings  with  it  its  own  punishment :  man 
who  has  lost  God,  loses  also  himself.     Immorality  is  a  natural 
consequence  of  ungodliness ;  but  a  consequence  which  has  its 
ground  in  God's  holy  will,  and  is,  therefore,  a  revelation  of 
His  righteous  judgment  (Rom.  1,  18).     Impure  desire,   which 
even  manifests  itself  in  an  unnatural  form,  first  becomes  asso- 
ciated  with  idolatry ;    and  the  sinful  passion  combines  with 
animosity  and  hatred  towards  all  that  which  opposes  the  grati- 
fication of  unbridled  sensuality  and  selfishness  (Rom.  1,  25-31). 
Thus  is  sin  punished  by  sin ;  and  this  punishment  is  the  more 
appropriate,  not  only  because  the  sin  is  practiced  in  spite  of 
better  knowledge,  but  also — a  fine  pyschological  trait,  although 
a  terrible  one — because  at  the  same  time  there  is  united  with 
this  an  unconcealed  pleasure  in  those  who  do  the  same  (Rom.  1, 
32). 

5.  On  a  superficial  observation,  it  might  appear  as  though 
Judaism   stood,   in  a  religious  and   moral   aspect,    far  above 
heathenism.     It  had,  in  reality,  inestimable  privileges  and  ad- 
vantages.    God  had  allowed  the  Gentiles  to  walk  in  their  own 
ways,  in  that  He  conferred  upon  them  no  extraordinary  reve- 
lation, while,  on  the  other  hand,    this  was  granted  to  Israel 
(Acts  14,  16  ;  Rom.  3,  2).     But  so  much  the  less  might  the  Jew 
exalt   himself  above  the   Gentile,   since  he,  notwithstanding, 
became  guilty  of  the  same  sins  (Rom.  2,  1).     It   is  true,  his 
perverseness  shows  itself  in  another  form :  according  to  Paul, 
not  so  much  voluptuousness  as  pride  is  the  ruling  sin  of  the 
Jews — self-conceit  and  harshness  (Rom.  2,  17,  sqq.),  united  with 
an  obdurate  impenitence  in  presence  of  the  judgments  of  God 
(Rom.  2,  4.  5).     But  so  far  from  this  modified  form  of  sin  de- 
serving a  lesser  punishment,  the  Jewish  transgressor  has,  on 
the  other  hand,    to  expect  especial   tribulation   and  anguish, 
because  he  has  sinned — not  only  like  the  heathen — against  a 
natural  law,  but  against  a  positive  command  (Rom.  2,  9-12). 
Outward  circumcision  avails  nothing:   conscientious  Gentiles 
deserve  the  preference  over  unconscientious  Jews  (Rom.  2,  25- 
29).     Thus,  these  last  have  not  the  slightest  advantage  in  a 
moral  respect,  although  they   are   privileged  in  a  theocratic 
sense,  and — Paul  expresses  it  with  the  same  inflexible  severity 
as  John  the  Baptist  and  Jesus  himself — all  pharisaic  pride  must 


164:  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

be  humbled.  After  having  powerfully  repelled  the  possible 
objection  that  upon  such  a  supposition  the  whole  value  of  cir- 
cumcision vanishes  (Rom.  3,  1-8),  he  appeals  for  the  justice  ol 
this  his  judgment  (Rom.  3,  9-19),  to  their  own  law  (Rom.  3, 19), 
i.  e.,  to  words  of  the  whole  Old  Testament,  especially  regarded 
in  its  moral  aspect.  The  description  there  given  of  the  wicked- 
ness of  the  enemies  of  God,  applies  not  less  to  the  Jews  than 
to  the  Gentiles ;  and  since  these  two  represent  the  totality  of 
the  sinful  world,  it  is  easy  to  infer  his  judgment  upon  the 
melancholy  condition  of  the  same. 

6.  It  is,  then,  manifest  that  all  are  "  under  sin"  (Rom.  3,  9), 
i  e.,  not  merely  sinners,  but  governed  by  the  power  of  sin. 
The  absolute  universality  of  sin  is,  according  to  Paul,  a  fact 
proved  successively  by  Scripture,  by  experience,   and  by  con- 
sciousness ;  and  had  he  foreseen  the  objection  that  his  represen- 
tation of  the  then  Jewish  and  Gentile  world,  even  supposing  it 
to  be  a  purely  accurate  one,  proves  nothing  in  regard  to  other 
individuals  living  at  a  later  period,  he  would  assuredly  have 
answered  that  human  nature  remains  the  same  in  all  ages.     He 
directs  the  eye  to  the  mass,  as  it  divides  itself  in  this  way  into 
two  only  apparently  dissimilar  halves,  but  thereby  expresses  at 
the  same  time  his  judgment  upon  the  individuals  themselves 
(comp.  Rom.  3,  23;  5,  12;  11,  32).     Result:  "All  the  world 
is  guilty  before  God,"  i.  e.,  subject  to  the  curse  with  which  the 
law  visits  transgression  (Rom.  3,  19 ;  Gal.  3,  13). 

7.  Therefore,  also,  it  follows  that  no  flesh  can  be  justified 
by  works  of  law.     In  this  inevitable  conclusion  (Rom.  3,  20), 
is  pronounced  the  righteous  judgment  of  God  upon  the  whole 
Jewish  and  Gentile  world.     How  heavily  this  judgment  presses 
upon  it,  we  shall  hereafter  see.     For  the  present,  we  are  con- 
cerned, first  of  all,  with  the  question,  What  is  the  cause  of 
such  a  lamentable  condition  ? 

Compare,  for  the  explaining  and  confirming  of  Paul's  judg- 
ment on  the  heathen  and  Jewish  world,  in  addition  to  the 
well-known  writings  of  THOLUCK,  SEPP,  DE  PKESSENSE,  and 
others,  our  " Life  of  Jesus"  2nd  ed.  I.  bl.  265,  and  following. 
On  Paul's  representation  of  the  misery  of  mankind  without 
Christ,  and  of  the  period  before  Christ,  two  essays  in  Wdarh.  en 
L.  1837.  On  Paul's  Natural  Theology,  HEBAKT,  "  The  Natural 
Theology  of  the  Apostle  Paul,'11  Nurnberg,  1860. 


The  Cause  of  this  Condition.  165 

Questions  for  consideration.  —  Does  Paul's,  judgment  upon 
heathenism,  Acts  17,  16  and  following,  perfectly  agree  with 
his  judgment  in  Rom.  1,  18  and  following? — Value  of  his 
judgment  upon  Judaism. — What  is  the  sense  of  Rom.  2,  14 
15  ? — What  logical  force  has  the  argument,  Kom.  3,  9-20  ? 

§35. 
The  Cause  of  this  Condition. 

The  cause  of  this  condition  lies  in  the  moral  corruption  of 
man,  which,  arising  from  the  disobedience  of  our  first  parents, 
infects  his  whole  nature,  manifests  itself  in  various  degrees  and 
forms,  and — being  by  the  law  not  simply  bridled,  but  also 
nourished — necessarily  leads  to  death  as  the  wages  of  sin. 

1.  The  question,  Whence  moral  evil  ?  was  not  only  the  life- 
question  of  the  Gnosticism  of  the  second  century,  but  also  a 
main  question  of  the  Christian  gnosis   of  the  first   century. 
Paul  also  furnishes  an  answer  to  it,  and  there  is  no  reason  to 
see  in  this  answer  merely  an  impure  fragment  of  his  former 
Jewish  theology.     Hardly  would  the  Apostle  have  adopted  into 
his  Christian  doctrinal  system  what  he  had  learned  from  the 
Old  Testament,  had  he  not,  enlightened  by  the  spirit  of  truth, 
regarded  it  as  the  true  solution  of  the  point  in  question.     With 
full  confidence,  we  will  now  direct  our  attention  as  well  to  his 
historical  as  to  his  psychological  explanation  of  the  origin  of 
sin. 

2.  Sin  (AfiaQria)  is  not  with  Paul,  as  with  James  and  Peter,  a 
sinful  act,  but  a  culpable  principle,  a  power,  which  at  a  given 
time  began  to  rule  in  the  world.     Sin  "  by  one  man  entered 
into  the  world"  (Rom.  5,  12).     What  is  suggested  by  this  word 
(eiariWe)  is  confirmed  by  other  texts.     More  fully  than  any  of 
his  predecessors  does  Paul  express  himself  as  to  the  origin  of  a 
kingdom  of  darkness,  of  personal  evil  spirits,  divided  into  dif- 
ferent classes   (Eph.   6,   12),  fallen  apparently  through  pride 
(1  Tim.  8,   6),  and   who,  constantly  active  in  the  idolatrous 
heathen  world  (1  Cor.  10,  20),  show  themselves  most  hostile 
to  the  kingdom  of  Christ  and  his  servants  (2  Cor.  2,  10.  11). 


166  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

That  lie  regards  Satan  as  the  author  of  the  Fall,  is  not, 
indeed,  directly  stated,  but  is  in  the  highest  degree  probable 
(2  Cor.  11,  3.  14 ;  comp.  John  8,  44 ;  also  Book  of  Wisdom  2, 
23.  24).  He  does  not,  however,  enlarge  upon  this  point,  be- 
cause he  has  not  to  do  with  the  metaphysical,  but  with  the 
historical  origin  of  sin.  He  contemplates  the  world  of  men 
(xdapos)  as  a  unity,  and  declares  that  into  it  sin  entered  by  one 
man,  Adam,  (not  Eve,  as  has  been  inferred  from  1  Tim.  2,  14). 
He  means  thereby  not  merely  that  Adam  was  the  first  sinner, 
whose  example  is  directly  followed  by  all,  but — as  becomes 
evident  from  the  contrast  between  Adam  and  Christ — that 
between  this  first  act  of  transgression  and  the  sin  which  after- 
wards reigned,  there  exists  a  definite  connection.  In  what 
this  connection  consists  is  indicated  by  what  immediately  fol- 
lows :  "  Death  by  sin,  and  so  death  passed  through  to  all  men, 
for  that  (<V  <*>)  all  have  sinned;"  and  that  not  only  in  Adam, 
but  also  in  themselves,  as  is  manifest  from  the  fact  that  death  is 
universal,  even  among  those  who  have  not,  like  Adam,  broken 
a  positive  command  (Rom.  5,  13.  14).  Still  more  clearly  does 
the  Apostle  point  out  the  true  connection  when  he  says  (vs.  19) 
that,  "  through  one  man's  transgression  many  were  made  (con- 
stituted) sinners,"  in  other  words  have  become  sinners.  If,  in 
addition  to  this,  we  follow  out  the  hint  he  gives  us  in  his  asser- 
tion, that  the  Jews  as  well  as  the  Grentiles  were  by  nature 
(qouo-et,  indole  sua,  Bph.  2,  3),  children  of  wrath,  and  in  his 
more  general  statement,  that  death  came  through  a  man  (8S 
d*'%d7rov),  (1  Cor.  15,  21),  we  have  a  perfect  right  to  maintain 
that,  according  to  Paul,  human  nature  has  become  corrupt  in 
consequence  of  its  descent  from,  and  its  connection  with,  the 
first  transgressor ;  and  that  death  is  by  no  means  the  conse- 
quence of  the  original  organization  of  our  nature,  but  penalty, 
the  wages  of  sin  (Eom.  6,  23). 

Paul  evidently  implies,  therefore,  that  the  first  man  was 
originally  neither  sinful  nor  mortal.  This  is  not  in  any  way 
opposed  by  the  fact  that  he  elsewhere  speaks  of  the  first  man 
as  earthy  (1  Cor.  15,  45-47),  for  earthy  (xoixbg)  is  not  the  same 
as  evil  It  is,  moreover,  scarcely  to  be  supposed  that  Paul  re- 
garded matter  (My)  as  the  origin  of  sin,  which  would  necessarily 
lead  to  the  execrable  conception  of  God  as  the  cause  of  sin  (Rom. 


The  Cause  of  this  Condition.  167 

3,  8).  He  speaks,  on  the  contrary,  of  the  original  image  of  God 
in  man  (Eph.  4,  23-24  ;  Colos.  3,  9-10),  and  designates  knowl- 
edge and  holiness  as  lineaments  thereof.  While  the  first  man, 
as  such,  was,  indeed,  a  material  being,  there  was  involved  in 
this  the  possibility  only,  not  the  necessity,  of  dying.  That  the 
possibility  became  a  reality,  is  the  especial  consequence  of  sin. 
Sin  and  death  are  with  Paul  correlative  ideas. 

3.  Since,  then,  sin  has  infected  human  nature,  it  lies  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  that  it  has  denied  the  whole  man.  In  order 
rightly  to  apprehend  the  Apostle's  conception  of  the  psycholog- 
ical origin  and  the  compass  of  sin  in  man,  we  must  understand 
his  anthropology.  Paul  is  a  trichotomist  —  that  is,  he  distin- 
guishes body,  soul,  and  spirit  This  is  shown  with  especial 
clearness  in  his  prayer  for  the  Thessalonians  (1  Thes.  5,  23). 
Even  to  the  man  who  is  unregenerate,  the  Apostle  ascribes  in 
distinction  from  the  soul  (VVXTJ),  a  spirit  (nvevna)  ;  which,  how- 
ever, must  be  entirely  renewed  (Eph.  4,  23).  To  the  spirit  there 
is  opposed,  in  the  natural  man,  as  a  ruling  power,  the  trd^,  i.  e., 
the  flesh  —  by  no  means  equivalent  to  body,  a&fia  —  the  proper 
seat  of  sin  (Rom.  7,  17.  18).  By  the  word  flesh,  we  are  not  to 
understand  the  dominion  of  the  senses  —  in  that  case,  contrary  to 
the  assertion  of  Paul  (1  Tim.  4,  8),  bodily  discipline  (asceticism) 
would  be  the  best  way  to  perfection,  and  it  would  be  absolutely 
inexplicable  how  precisely  the  most  spiritual  of  all  sins,  pride 
and  want  of  affection,  could  be  reckoned  among  the  works  of 
the  flesh  (Gal.  5.  20;  Colos.  2,  18-23)—  but  (in  the  ethical  sense 
of  the  word)  the  unsanctified  human  nature,  as  it  opposes  itself 
in  a  hostile  manner  to  God,  and  all  that  is  of  God.*  As  the 
sinful  man  stands,  through  his  spirit,  in  relationship  with  God, 
so  does  he,  through  his  flesh,  stand  in  relationship  with  the  visi- 
ble world,  which  offers  to  the  desire  of  the  flesh  (intdvpioi)  a  thou- 
sand attractive  but  forbidden  objects.  Life  according  to  the 
flesh  is  consequently  of  necessity  not  a  life  of  love,  but  of  selfish- 
ness (2  Cor.  5,  15),  the  poisonous  root,  out  of  which  grow  of 
themselves,  as  it  were,  two  opposite  branches,  the  sins  of  pride 
and  of  sensuality. 

Sin,  as  a  principle  (sinfulness)  manifests  itself  in  the  act  of 


*  Zapf  is  not  smj/za,  but  =  orw/za  +  ifn>xij,  in  opposition  to  irvevpa.     On  this  ac- 
count, also,  the  same  thing  is  in  the  main  implied  by  oapxiKoc  and  IJWXIKOC  u 


168  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

disobedience — in  the  doing  of  what  is  not  becoming.  This  Paul 
indicates  by  different  words — na^dnTM/na  naQ&favig,  Ttagaxo^  &nsi- 
deux,  tidixia.  Out  of  the  heart,  the  central  point  of  the  person- 
ality, proceeds  this  evil  power,  darkening  the  understanding, 
and  misusing,  like  a  tyrant,  the  different  members  of  the  body 
as  so  many  weapons  (Ma)  wherewith  to  wage  its  shameful  war- 
fare against  God  and  that  which  is  good  (Rom.  6,  13).  If  man 
yields  to  it,  he  becomes,  in  his  whole  inner  and  outer  life,  en- 
tirely under  the  dominion  of  the  flesh — sold  under  sin.  Hence 
the  expressions,  "to  be  in  the  flesh,"  uto  live  after  the  flesh," 
"to  mind  the  things  of  the  flesh,"  as  indicating  this  melancholy 
condition.  Without  doubt,  Paul  concedes  to  the  sinful  man 
the  power  of  free  self-determination,  inasmuch  as  voluntarily, 
even  arbitrarily,  he  sins  against  God  (Rom.  1,  28) ;  how  could 
man  otherwise  be  held  guilty  and  worthy  of  punishment 
(Rom.  2,  1)?  Yea,  even  the  heathen  has  in  his  conscience  a 
lawgiver  and  an  inflexible  judge  (Rom.  2,  15) ;  and  in  this  very- 
conscience  does  the  gospel  seek  and  find  in  every  man  its  secret 
point  of  contact  (2  Cor.  4,  2 ;  5,  lib).  But  in  the  sinner,  under- 
standing and  conscience  are  both  defiled  (Tit.  1, 15)  ;  and  where 
his  heart  has  become  insensible,  he  has  given  himself  up  entirely 
to  the  service  of  unrighteousness  (Eph.  4,  19).  In  such  a  con- 
dition, it  is  impossible  to  speak  of  the  moral  freedom  of  the  sin- 
ner ;  sin  is,  in  Paul's  eyes,  no  infirmity,  but  a  fatal  power,  which 
in  spite  of  all  protests  of  the  reason  and  conscience,  bears 
away  the  victory  over  the  natural  man.  It  may  rise  so  high 
as  not  merely  to  blind,  but  harden  the  man,  and  even  to  cause 
him  to  find  a  natural  pleasure  in  moral  evil  as  such  (Rom.  1, 
32 ;  Eph.  4,  19). 

4.  After  what  has  been  said,  we  cannot  be  surprised  that  the 
Apostle  declares  the  mind  of  the  flesh  to  be  enmity  against  God 
and  His  law  (Rom.  8,  7).  So  much  the  more  natural,  however? 
is  the  question,  in  what  relation,  according  to  his  view,  the  law 
stands  to  sin.  When  Paul  mentions  the  law  (6  v6[ios),  he  or- 
dinarily means  the  Mosaic  law,  in  its  whole  compass  of  moral 
and  ceremonial  commands,  as  the  rule  of  life  ordained  by  God. 
The  law  is  by  no  means  something  sinful  in  itself,  much  less  the 
cause  of  evil.  It  is  true,  indeed,  as  a  general  fact,  that  no  sin  is 
possible  without  law,  but  then,  law  is  possible  without  sin.  The 


The  Cause  of  this  Condition.  169 

law  is,  in  its  contents  and  aim,  holy,  and  just,  and  good  (Rom. 
7,  12  ;  Gal.  3, 12).  It  was  given  "  because  of  the  transgressions," 
(Gal.  3,  19),  i.  e.,  in  order  to  restrain  them  it  was  added  to  the 
promise ;  it  was  like  a  stern  disciplinarian,  who  brings  unruly 
boys  under  control  by  holding  over  them  the  rod  (Gal.  3,  24. 25). 
To  this  extent  it  exerts,  after  its  own  manner,  a  healthful  reaction 
against  the  power  of  sin,  and  teaches  man  to  recognize  it  as 
sin,  i.  e.,  as  the  cause  of  guilt  and  punishment  (Rom.  3,  20;  7, 
7).  But  in  spite  of  this,  its  excellent  aim,  the  operation  even 
of  the  best  law  can,  for  the  sinful  man,  be  only  fraught  with 
destruction.  Without  the  law  sin  is  dead  (Rom.  7,  8),  but 
through  the  commandment  it  revives.  The  law  awakens  in  the 
sinner  the  slumbering  desire  after  that  which  is  evil,  and  calls 
forth  on  his  part  resistance  against  its  own  imperative  require- 
ments. Thus  it  becomes  the  power  of  sin  (1  Cor.  15,  56) — a 
power  which  not  only  reveals  sin,  but  also  constantly  increases 
it ;  yea,  even  was  with  this  last  aim  appointed  by  God  himself, 
inasmuch  as  He  willed  that,  through  the  increase  of  sin,  the 
need  of  redemption  should  be  more  deeply  felt,  and  the  revela- 
tion of  His  grace  so  much  the  more  highly  prized.  The  law, 
however,  produces  only  wrath  (Rom.  4,  15) ;  the  transgression 
of  it  incurs  necessarily  the  manifestation  of  His  displeasure, 
and  thereby  brings  the  transgressor  into  a  condition  of  slavish 
fear,  which  excludes  all  love,  and  renders  the  estrangement  only 
greater  (Rom.  8,  15).  On  this  account,  also,  no  law  is  able  to 
give  life  to  the  sinner  (Gal.  3,  21),  that  is  to  say,  to  give  him  the 
true  life  of  the  spirit,  which  would  enable  him  to  fulfill  God's 
will  out  of  love.  By  works  of  the  law.  therefore,  i.  e.,  works 
which  the  sinful  man  performs  from  the  stand-point  of  law,  can 
no  flesh  be  justified  before  God  (Rom.  3,  20).  To  him  who 
fulfills  the  law,  life  is  promised  ;  he  who  transgresses  it  has 
thereby  forfeited  his  life ;  restoration  to  God's  favor  and  friend- 
ship by  the  fulfilling  of  the  law  is  so  impossible  that  all  who 
proceed  on  this  principle  must,  on  the  contrary,  expect  the 
curse  (Gal.  3,  10). 

In  a  word,  the  Mosaic  law  had — regarded  from  a  Christian 
stand-point — only  a  temporary  and  provisional  worth.     There 

*  On  the  distinction  between  vopos  and  6  vouof  as  used  by  Paul,  see  VAN  HEN 
GEL  on  Rom.  2,  12.     [Also,  WINER,  New  Test,  Grammar,  §  19.] 

11 


170  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

was  a  time  when  all  mankind  objectively  (Rom.  5,  13),  and 
Paul  subjectively  (Rom.  7,  9),  lived  without  the  law.  A  time 
arrives  for  the  Christian,  in  which  he  no  longer  stands  under 
the  law  as  a  controlling  and  condemning  power  (Rom.  6,  15). 
But  until  this  time  has  come,  sin  and  misery  are  only  increased 
by  the  law.  It  can  hold  forth  the  ideal  before  the  sinner's  eye, 
but  can  never  render  the  attainment  thereof  possible. 

5.  Thus  sin  brings  death,  just  because  it  is  wrought  in  op- 
position to  the  command  of  the  law.  Necessarily  it  is  now 
imputed  (Rom.  5,  13),  as  well  on  this  side  as  on  the  other  side 
of  the  grave.  The  sinner  comes  short  of  the  glory  (<%£«)  of  God, 
i.  e.,  of  the  honor  which  he  would  have  had  with  Gk>d,  had  he 
not  sinned  and  become  exposed  to  the  righteous  judgment 
which  concentrates  itself  in  death  (Rom.  6,  21 ;  comp.  Gen.  2, 
17).  The  Pauline  idea  of  death  is  not  easily  denned  in  all  its 
fullness.  It  is  evident  at  a  glance  that  we  are  not  justified  in 
restricting  it  to  physical  death  alone,  nor  in  entirely  rejecting 
this  idea.  In  every  case  the  idea  of  spiritual  death  is  also  in- 
cluded (Eph.  2,  1.  5 ;  Colas.  2,  13 ;  Eph.  5,  14) ;  and  we  can- 
not  overlook  the  fact  that  death  is,  in  the  full  sense  the  wages 
of  sin,  inasmuch  as  it  ends  in  irretrievable  perdition  (andteux). 
That  Paul  had  also  this  latter  in  his  mind,  is  clear  from  the 
antithesis  of  death  and  the  gracious  gift  of  eternal  life  (Rom. 
6,  23).  In  the  idea  of  death  there  is  united,  consequently,  that 
of  the  greatest  spiritual,  temporal  and  everlasting  wretchedness ; 
and  in  the  language  of  the  Apostle,  now  this,  now  the  other 
side  of  his  subject  comes  into  prominence.  Spiritual  death 
leads  to  temporal,  and  this  passes  over  into  eternal  death 
(2  Cor.  7,  10). 

Comp.,  on  the  principal  points  herein  treated  of,  especially 
ERNESTI,  "  Of  the  origin  of  sin  according  to  the  doctrinal  system  of 
Paul,"  2  Thle.,  Gott,  1863-64;  TIJSSEN,  Diss.  Theol  Pauli, 
Anthropologiam  exhibens,  Gron.,  1847.  On  the  law,  HAMEKSTEK, 
Diss.  Theol.  de  lege  e  Pauli  Ap.  sententid,  Gron.,  1838;  RITZSCHL, 
"  The  Rise  of  the  ancient  Catholic  Church"  2  Aufl.  1857,  S. 
63-76. 

Questions  for  consideration. — By  what  peculiarities  is  the 
demonology  of  Paul  distinguished  ? — What  significance  for  his 


Its  Consequences.  171 

doctrine  concerning  man  has  the  history  of  the  Fall  ? — The 
trichotomy  of  man  in  the  writings  of  Paul. — Paul's  doctrine  of 
the  conscience. — What  is  the  sense  of  Gal.  2,  19? — What  of 
1  Tim.  1,  8-10,  as  compared  with  the  view  taken  of  the  law  in 
the  Epistles  to  the  Komans  and  Galatians  ? — Is,  in  Paul's  teach- 
ing, even  natural  death  to  be  regarded  as  a  positive  punishment 
of  sin  ? 

§36. 

Its  Consequences. 

Subject  to  the  power  of  sin  and  death,  man  is  reduced  to  a 
state  of  woful  discord,  the  traces  of  which  are  apparent  even  in 
the  natural  world  and  the  consciousness  of  which,  when  it  is 
once  awakened,  cannot  but  render  him  unspeakably  wretched. 
In  the  feeling  of  this  wretchedness  is  given,  nevertheless,  at  the 
same  time,  the  point  at  which  inner  receptiveness  for  the  bless- 
ings of  salvation  begins. 

1.  However  sad  the  condition  into  which  sin  has  brought 
man  (§  35),  it  would  be  less  unendurable  if  the  man  were 
entirely  sunk  in  the  sinner.     This,  however,  according  to  the 
teaching  of  our  Apostle,  is  certainly  not  the  case ;  the  original 
nature  of  man  has  been  corrupted,  indeed,  by  sin,  but  by  no 
means  annihilated.     In   consequence   thereof,  there  naturally 
arises  within  the  sinful  heart  a  feeling  of  discord,  which  ren- 
ders impossible  the  enjoyment  of  inward  peace. 

2.  The  Pauline  representation  of  discord  in  the  sinful  heart 
must  be  distinguished  from  that  which  he  says  of  the  conflict 
in  the  heart  of  the  believer  (Gal.  5, 17).     Even  in  the  Christian, 
flesh  and  spirit  do  not  cease  to  war  against  each  other ;  but  in 
the  man  who  is  yet  oat  of  Christ,  while  the  spirit  (16  nvev^a)  is 
present,  it  is  as  a  part  of  his  nature  which  is  slavishly  bound ; 
he  is  by  nature  fleshly,  and  sold  under  sin  (Rom.    7,   14). 
When  he  begins,  like  Paul  himself  before  his  conversion,  to 
come  through  the  law  to  self-knowledge  and  a  knowledge  of 
his  proper  destiny,  the  law  of  his  mind  begins  to  struggle  with 
the  law  in  his  members.     There  is  seen  now  the  discord  be- 


172  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

tween  the  sinful  nature  and  the  awakened  conscience  ;  but.  the 
fruitless  conflict  ever  ends  in  a  painful  defeat,  and  the  com- 
batant remains  an  enigma  to  himself,  unless  his  weakness  is 
transformed  into  strength  through  another  power  than  that  of 
the  law.* 

3.  Not  in  the  microcosm  of  the  human  heart  alone,  but  also 
in  the  macrocosm  of  the  world,  is  reflected,  in  the  view  of  the 
Apostle,  the  same  element  of  discord.     The  whole  creation — 
that  is,  all  animate  and  inanimate  nature — is  unwillingly  and 
in  consequence  of  sin,  subjected,  through  the  will  of  God,  to 
vanity,  and  awaits  with  longing  expectation  a  redemption  and 
glorifying  which  it  shall  receive  only  when  the  sighing  of  those 
who  have  the  first  fruits  of  the  Spirit  is  heard,  and  the  glory  of 
the  children  of  Grod  shall  have  been  made  complete  and  man- 
ifest.    Nature  suffers  with  humanity,  since  its  destiny  is  most 
intimately  bound  up  with  that  of  humanity  :  both  look  for  the 
same  thing — redemption. 

4.  Sinful  man  cannot  be  redeemed  by  the  laying  aside  of  the 
body  of  death,  for  death  itself  is  a  punishment  which  leads  to 
greater  misery  (§  35,   5).     Paul  speaks  of  a  flaming  fire,  in 
which  vengeance  is  taken  on  those  who  know  not  (rod,  and 

*  We  meet  here  one  of  the  most  difficult,  but,  at  the  same  time,  one  of  the  most 
important,  passages  in  the  Pauline  Epistles — Eom.  7,  7-24.  The  exposition — de- 
termined by  dogmatic  prepossession— which  was  current  for  centuries,  would  per- 
haps have  afforded  less  room  for  difference  of  views,  had  not  these  two  questions 
been  unceasingly  confounded :  —  "  Of  whom  is  the  Apostle  here  speaking?"  and 
"  To  whom  is  his  striking  description  always  more  or  less  applicable  ?"  That  to 
the  latter  question  the  answer  was  given  "  To  every  believer,"  will  surprise  no  one 
who  is  no  stranger  to  the  domain  of  spiritual  life.  But  from  this  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  Paul  is  actually  describing  the  life  of  the  believer.  Against  this 
supposition  is  (1)  the  connection  and  entire  aim  of  his  reasoning;  (2)  the  fact  that 
he  describes  a  conflict  not  of  the  TTvevpa,  but  of  the  vovg  (the  inward  man)  which 
pertains  also  to  the  unregenerate  as  against  the  flesh;  and  (3)  his  description  in 
ver.  14  is  not  consistent  with  the  idea  of  Christian  freedom  as  presented  in  8,  2  ;  6, 
17,  18,  and  Gal.  5,  24.  He  is  manifestly  describing  his  former  state  in  the  light 
of  his  present  condition,  and  the  present  in  which  he  speaks  is  partly  to  be  ex- 
plained by  the  vividness  of  his  description,  partly  by  the  fact  that  the  after-pains 
of  this  melancholy  condition  were  still  perceptible,  inasmuch  as  perfect  redemption 
was  not  yet  enjoyed.  In  Rom.  7,  it  is  neither  the  mere  natural  man  who  is  de- 
scribed, nor  the  Christian  in  his  normal  state ;  but  the  sinner  under  the  law,  who  is 
beginning  to  awake  and  strive  after  better  things,  the  object  of  the  gratia  pr&- 
parans  et  p?-ceveniens.  Paul's  words  will  recall  the  words  of  many  an  earnest- 
minded  heathen :  e.  g.,  the  '  Video  meliora,  proboque"  &c. 


Its  Consequences.  173 

reject  the  Gospel — of  the  suffering  of  punishment,  even  ever- 
lasting destruction,  in  banishment  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord  and  from  the  glory  of  His  power  (2  Thess.  1,  9).  Else- 
where, also,  it  appears  that  he  represents  this  judgment  under 
figures  like  those  of  his  contemporaries.  Nowhere  is  there  found 
even  a  single  hint  that  he  looks  for  any  diminution  or  removal 
of  this  punishment.  He  proclaims,  indeed,  diverse  heavy  judg- 
ments, which  are  determined  in  degree  by  the  greater  or  lesser 
amount  of  light  by  which  the  transgressor  was  surrounded ; 
but  even  the  heathen  do  not  escape  unpunished,  when  they  sin 
against  the  light  of  conscience  (Kom.  2,  9-12).  On  the  part  of 
man,  also,  nothing  is  to  be  reaped  from  sowing  to  the  flesh 
except  corruption  (cpOoQti.  Gal.  6,  8).  Before  rejecting  this 
teaching  of  the  Apostle  concerning  a  last  judgment  as  an  unim- 
portant remnant  of  his  former  rabbinical  learning,  we  shall  do 
well  to  ask  whether  the  Apostle  here  in  any  way  proceeds  be- 
yond that  which  is  warranted  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  himself 
and  the  figurative  language  of  the  Old  Testament  prophetical 
books. 

5.  Man,  who  is  conscious  of  such  a  division  within  himself, 
and  looks  forward  to  such  a  judgment,  must  necessarily  feel 
himself  unspeakably  miserable.  Nevertheless,  that  which  is 
his  deepest  source  of  suffering  becomes,  on  the  other  hand,  his 
happiness :  the  sinner — precisely  at  the  time  when  he  feels  him- 
self irretrievably  lost,  and  inasmuch  as  he  does  so  feel  himself 
— can  be  saved.  The  consciousness  of  his  own  misery  (Rom. 
7,  23-25)  is  at  the  same  time  the  inner  point  of  contact  for  the 
work  of  redemption.  Herein  is  the  fallen  man  distinguished 
from  the  fallen  angel,  whom  Paul  never  otherwise  represents 
than  as  taking  pleasure  in  corrupting,  and  as  given  up  to  ever- 
lasting perdition.  If,  however,  the  salvation  of  the  sinner, 
which  is  in  this  way  psychologically  possible,  is  to  become  an 
actual  fact,  it  must  proceed  from  God  himself. 

On  Rom.  7,  7-24,  see  the  Prize  Essays  of  FOCKENS  and 
BERGSMA  crowned  by  the  Hague  Society  (1832)  and  especially 
the  Commentaries  of  THOLUCK  and  LANGE.  On  Rom.  8, 
19-23,  our  "  Christol.  of  the  N.  T.,"  bl.  300-311,  and  LANGE.  The 
whole  Pauline  conception  of  the  depth  of  this  wretchedness  has, 
perhaps,  after  AUGUSTINE  and  LUTHER,  been  better  understood 


174  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

by  no  one  than  by  BLAISE  PASCAL.     See  the  Dissertation  on 
this  subject  by  Dr.  WIJNMALEN,  Utr.  1865. 

Questions  for  consideration. — What  opinion  are  we  to  form  as 
to  the  person  who  is  introduced  as  speaking  in  Eom.  7,  7-24  ? 
— Summary  and  criticism  of  the  most  important  expositions  of 
Kom.  8,  19-23. — Harmony  and  criticism  of  the  whole  doctrine 
of  man's  misery  as  contained  in  Paul  and  in  Augustine. — Its 
permanent  truth  and  value. 


SECOND  DIVISION. 
MANKIND  AND  THE  INDIVIDUAL  MAN  THKOUGH  AND  IN  CHKIST. 

§37. 
The  Plan  of  Salvation. 

The  righteousness  of  God,  which,  on  account  of  sin  is  want- 
ing both  to  Jew  and  Gentile,  is  promised  and  presented  to 
the  sinner  in  a  way  very  different  from  that  of  his  own  merit. 
The  Gospel  of  the  New  Testament  proclaims  the  mystery  of  a 
Divine  plan  of  salvation,  which,  formed  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  was  shadowed  forth  throughout  the  whole  prepar- 
atory economy  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  revealed  in  the 
fulness  of  time  ;  which  embraces  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  world, 
heaven  and  earth,  and  in  its  gradual  development  shows  forth, 
with  a  lustre  before  unknown,  the  majesty  and  glory  of  God. 

1.  What  could  proceed  from  God  alone  has  actually  been 
bestowed  by  God.  With  Paul  it  is  a  certain  fact  that  God  in 
Christ  has  done  that  which  to  the  law  was  impossible  (Eom. 
8,  3.  4).  If  it  is  impossible  that  God  should  be  the  efficient 
cause  of  moral  evil  (Kom.  3,  8)>  so  it  is  equally  certain  that  He 
is  the  cause  of  all  that  is  spiritually  good  (1  Cor.  1,  30). 
Therefore,  also,  God,  in  the  whole  fullness  of  His  being,  is  called 


The  Plan  of  Salvation  175 

the  Saviour  (1  Tim.  1,  1 ;  2,  3 ;  au>i%,  a  truly  Pauline  char- 
acteristic in  the  Pastoral  Epistles),  whose  love  to  sinners — a 
love,  however,  which  had  been  entirely  forfeited  by  them — 
bears  the  character  of  grace,  and  bestows  upon  them  that  which 
reason,  left  to  itself,  is  not  able  even  to  comprehend  (1  Cor.  2,  9). 

2.  The  Gospel  of  this  grace  is  consequently,  in  the  view 
of  our  Apostle,  something  absolutely  new — not  the  continua- 
tion of  the  old  order,  but  its  direct  opposite.     It  is  the  joyful 
message  of  the  sinner's  justification  before  God  through  faith 
in  Christ,  and,  as  such,  a  revealed  secret  (nvaifyiov).     For  the 
word  mystery  has,  in  the  usage  of  our  Apostle,  a  sense  entirely 
different  from  that  in  which  it  was  employed  at  a  later  period. 
It  signifies  a  matter  which  was  before  unknown,  but  has  how 
come  to  light,  and  on  this  account  ceases  to  be  hidden,  although, 
even  after  it  has  been  made  known  to  men,  it  retains  its  obscure 
and  mysterious  side  (Kom.  11,   33).     "Understanding  in  the 
mystery"  is  obtained  only  through  revelation  (Eph.  3,  3.  4) — 
a  peculiar  supernatural  act  of  God,  which  is  indicated  by  Paul 
in  different  words — dm>x<ttvy*?,  gw^om?,  etc. — in  using  which, 
however,    it   cannot  be  shown  that  he   sharply  distinguishes 
between  them  in  order  to  express  in  each  case  a  different  idea 
of  revelation.     What,  on  the  other  hand,  is  still  concealed  in 
the  future,  remains  till  then  a  mystery,  which  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  can  be  believed  only  on  the  word  of  him  who 
declares  it  (1  Cor.  15,  51).     Although  Paul  enumerates  several 
such  mysteries,  all  of  which  fall  within  the  domain  of  Chris- 
tian knowledge  (1  Cor.    13,   2 ;  14,  2),  yet   preeminently   the 
Gospel  is  with  him  the  one  great  mystery  of  Christ  (Eph.  6,  19  ; 
Col.  4,  3),  which  exhibits  a  character  by  no  means  speculative, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  one  especially  practical  (1  Tim.  3,  16). 

3.  That  which  is  new  did  not  on  this  account  come  in  with- 
out preparation.     The  New  Testament  is  essentially  contained 
in  the  Old,  and  is  witnessed  by  the  law  which  is  replaced  by  it, 
and   by   the   prophets,    of  whom  it  is  a  glorious  fulfillment 
(Kom.  3,  21.  22).     No  Apostle  has  shown  a  deeper  insight  into 
the  whole  course  of  the  world's  history  than  Paul.     His  philo- 
sophic eye  sees  in  the  whole  pre-Christian  period  one  long  age 
of  preparation  which  was  brought  to  completion  only  in  the 
coming  of  Christ  (Gal.  4,  4).     He  is  the  end  of  the  law  (Rom. 


176  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

10,  4),  the  goal  to  which  its  whole  economy  tended ;  and  while, 
before  his  appearing,  God  allowed  the  Gentiles,  in  a  certain 
sense,  to  walk  in  their  own  ways  (Acts  14,  16),  yet  the  most 
privileged  nation  under  the  old  covenant  resembled  a  child 
who  has  not  yet  come  to  full  age  (Gal.  4,  1,  and  following). 
On  this  account,  he  could  regard  an  abandoning  of  Christianity 
only  as  a  relapse  into  an  earlier  stage  which  had  been  already 
left  behind  (Gal.  4,  9),  and  must  look  upon  the  obstinate  un- 
belief of  the  Jews  (2  Cor.  3,  14 ;  4,  4),  as  a  fruit  of  the  most 
lamentable  blindness.  The  Gospel,  which  is  of  a  spiritual 
nature,  cannot  possibly  be  understood  by  the  psychical  man  as 
such,  for  it  must  be  spiritually  judged  of  (1  Cor.  2,  14).  And 
no  wonder,  since  it  makes  acquainted  with  God's  purpose  of 
saving  sinners — in  former  ages  hidden  from  men — a  purpose 
which  has  been  formed  and  carried  into  execution  in  accordance 
with  his  own  plan. 

4.  The  salvation  proclaimed  in  the  Gospel  is  nothing  else 
than  the  carrying  out  in  time  of  that  which  God  had  determined 
within  himself  from  all  eternity.  Even  in  his  earliest  writings, 
Paul  shows  that  he  regards  those  who  believe  in  Christ  as 
elect  of  God  (1  Thes.  1,  4;  2  Thes.  2,  13),  in  whom  the  ideal 
of  ancient  Israel  is  most  beautifully  realized  (Gal.  6,  16).  Es- 
pecially in  the  Epistles  to  the  Komans  and  Ephesians  (Rom. 
9-11 ;  Eph.  1,  4,  sqq.)  does  this  idea  come  prominently  into 
the  foreground.  The  Apostle  speaks  of  a  Divine  plan  of  salva- 
tion the  center  of  which  is  Christ,  and  its  end  the  bright  reve- 
lation of  God's  glorious  perfection  (Born.  11,  36).  This  plan 
was  no  more  originated  in  consequence  of  sin  than  it  can  be 
permanently  frustrated  by  the  power  of  sin.  It  is  eternal  as 
God,  and  is  founded  not  on  any  excellence  of  man  himself, 
but  in  God's  adorable  and  unchangeable  good  pleasure:  not 
because  believers  are  holy,  but  in  order  that  they  may  become 
so,  has  God  chosen  them  (Eph.  1,  4,) ;  and  this  their  faith  is 
not  the  cause,  but  only  the  sign  of  their  election  unto  salva- 
tion. Without  doubt,  Paul  recognizes  a  Divine  calling  and 
election  to  a  participation  in  the  blessings  of  (outward)  Chris- 
tianity ;  yet  he  nowhere  makes  an  essential  difference  between 
this  and  the  calling  and  election  to  everlasting  salvation.  He 
could  not,  indeed,  make  this  distinction,  since  those  to  whom 


The  Plan  of  Salvation.  177 

lie  explains  this  mystery  were,  as  a  rule,  Christian  believers. 
Without  doubt,  he  speaks  of  the  choice  of  the  Gentiles  in 
their  totality  (Rom.  9-11),  as  opposed  to  the  national  rejection 
of  the  Jews ;  but  nowhere  is  there  to  be  found  a  single  proof 
that  he  entertains  any  other  view  than  that  of  personal  election 
to  salvation  with  regard  to  the  individuals  of  whom  this  total- 
ity is  composed  (^  ixloyJ\).  The  contrary  is  manifest  from  the 
way  in  which  he  views  the  history  of  Jacob,  Esau,  and  Pha- 
raoh and  in  which  he  consoles  believers,  and  urges  them  to 
the  work  of  sanctification,  by  reminding  them  of  their  personal 
predestination.  "All  this  is  singularly  clear,  and  certainly 
it  will  not  be  with  exegstical_arguments  that  the  system  which 
the  Augustines,  the  Calvins,  the  Gomars  have  built  up  upon 
these  premises  can  henceforth  be  combated"  (REUSS). 

5.  The  Divine  plan  of  salvation  is  in  itself  one  and  indivisi- 
ble, but  is  for  the  individual  only  gradually  realized.  God 
has  known  His  own  from  eternity  in  love  (rr^puKrtj),  and  on 
this  account  has  foreordained  them  (nqotyivev)  to  be  conformed 
to  the  image  of  His  Son.  Only  on  dogmatic  grounds  can  one 
desire  to  draw  a  sharp  line  of  distinction  between  these  two 
terms :  in  an  impartial  examination  of  the  Pauline  system  of 
thought,  they  flow,  as  it  were,  the  one  into  the  other.  "  Wil- 
lingly will  we  let  pass  this  distinction,  which  in  fact  only  con- 
ceals without  revealing  anything"  (SCHLEIERMACHEE).  Both 
belong  to  the  sphere  of  eternity ;  in  time,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  the  calling  (xfoja^)  with  which  the  personal  safe-conduct 
of  the  believer  to  the  blessedness  designed  for  him  begins. 
The  Apostle,  in  employing  this  term,  conceives  of  no  mere 
outward  call,  but  one  which  is,  at  the  same  time,  inwardly 
understood  and  accepted.  Wherever  there  is  a  calling  in  the 
Pauline  sense  of  the  word,  there,  at  the  same  time,  is  the  germ 
of  faith  and  of  conversion ;  and  herein  lies  the  logical  ground 
for  the  called  being  spoken  of  as  those  who  are  here  justified 
and  hereafter  glorified.  That  they  are,  however,  the  one  and 
the  other,  they  owe  exclusively  to  the  absolute  good  pleasure 
of  God  (etidoxta  TOV  fo^uaTog),  which  is  inseparably  one  with  his 
moral  perfection,  and  consequently  partakes  in  no  degree  what 
ever  of  an  arbitrary  character  (Eph.  1,  5-11). 


178  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

6.  Such  a  doctrine  would  appear  harsh,    considered  apart 
from  all  connection  with  the  sovereign  omnipotence  of  God  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  absolute  reprobation  due  to  sin  on  the 
other  hand.     But  it  is  precisely  to  this  connection  that  the 
Apostle  draws  attention,  when  (Rom.  9-11)  he  discusses  from 
the  apologetic  stand-point  the  exclusion  of  the  Jews  from  the 
blessings  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  opposed  to  the  reception 
of  the  Gentiles.     While  he  gives  expression  to  his  heart-felt 
sorrow  for  the  fate  of  his  nation,  he  shows  (a)  that  Israel's  re- 
jection (9,  6-13)  does  not  conflict  with  the  unchangeableness  of 
God,  since  the  promises  of  salvation  in  the  Old  Testament  are 
ever  made  to  the  true,  i.  e.,  the  believing  Israel;  and  just  as 
little  (b)  with  the  righteousness  of  God  (9,  14-29),  since  God 
is  indebted  to  no  one,  and,  as  Lord,  has  the  sovereign  disposal 
of  every  creature;  still  less  (c)  with  His  holiness,   since  this 
rejection  is  only  the  just  punishment  of  Israel's  unbelief  (9, 
30 — 10,  21) ;  least  of  all  (d)  with  His  truth,  compassion,  and 
grace,  since  Israel's  fall  becomes  salvation  to  the  Gentiles ;  and, 
more  than  this,  is  to  be  followed  by  its  own  restoration  (Rom. 
11).     He  does  not,  indeed,  in  this  manner,  remove  all  objec- 
tions; but,  nevertheless,  by  a  constant  reference  on  the  one 
hand  to  the  pregnant  texts  and  examples  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  on  the  other  hand  to  the  exalted  majesty  of  God,  he  redu- 
ces to  silence  obdurate  gainsaying.     His  object  is  manifestly 
to   establish  the   doctrine   of  God's  free  grace,  not  so  much 
against  all  working  and  striving  on  our  part,   as  against  all 
self-righteousness  and  all  human  merit. 

7.  Belief  in  God's  unalterable  decree  is  for  Paul  no  object 
of  abstract  reasoning.     "  Paul  is  not  here  a  philosopher,  who 
is  deducing  scientifically  the  formulas  of  metaphysics ;  he  is  an 
advocate  who  is  pleading  the  cause  of  God"  (BONIFAS).     Far 
from   commending   an   d  priori  searching   into   this  revealed 
mystery,  he  rather  teaches  believers,  standing,  as  it  were,  at  the 
end  of  their  journey,  to  look  back  upon  that  which  God  has 
destined  for  them  in  Christ ;  that  by  meditating  thereon,  both 
the  fruitfulness  and  the  joy  of  their  faith  may  be  increased. 
While   acknowledging  that,   .even  by  the  manifestation   and 
punishment  of  obdurate  unbelief,  God's  eternal  counsel  is  ful- 
filled, he  regards  this  unbelief  itself  as  a  fault,  for  which  men 


The  Plan  of  Salvation.  179 

are  personally  responsible.  As  it  is  impossible  to  mistake  the 
plain  sense  of  Komans  9,  so  also  is  it  unjustifiable  to  separate 
this  chapter  arbitrarily  from  the  tenth  and  eleventh.  The  true 
synthesis  of  the  apparently  irreconcilable  antinomy  between 
the  Divine  predestination  and  human  freedom  is  not  stated 
even  by  Paul.  It  suffices  him  to  lay  upon  the  second  member 
no  less  stress  than  upon  the  first — not  merely  to  bewail  the 
unbelief  of  Israel  as  a  sad  fact,  but  as  a  great  sin — and  to 
await  from  the  future  the  solution  of  a  problem  which  is  for 
unbelief  a  stone  of  stumbling,  but  is  already  for  faith  an  occa- 
sion for  deepest  adoration. 

8.  This  it  must  be  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  word,  since 
(rod's  plan  of  salvation  extends  not  to  this  world  alone;  but  to 
the  whole  creation.  The  great  thought  of  God  to  unite  all 
things  under  one  head  has  reference  not  only  to  men,  but  also 
to  angels — not  only  to  earth,  but  also  to  heaven  (Eph.  1,  10 ; 
Colos.  1,  20).  If  we  meditate  somewhat  deeply  upon  this 
Divine  purpose,  it  manifests  to  us  God's  adorable  wisdom  (Eph. 
3,  9—12),  but,  above  all,  the  inexhaustible  riches  of  His  grace, 
and  along  with  these  His  adorable  foreknowledge  (Eom.  11, 
33-36),  in  a  light  in  which  they  could  not  otherwise  be  seen, 
and  which  calls  forth  from  the  Apostle  a  strain  of  exultation 
(Rom.  8,  31-39),  of  which  even  Erasmus,  full  of  admiration, 
exclaimed:  "  Quid  unquam  Cicero  dixit  grandiloquentiusf1  No 
wonder — the  eloquence  of  Cicero  had  never  such  material  to 
dispose  of;  and  not  talent,  but  the  heart,  guided  the  pen  of 
Paul. 

Compare  the  Academical  Dissertations  of  VAN  STAVEREN, 
de  Evang.  Naturd,  Gron.  1839;  VAN  GESSELER,  deprcepar.  Jud. 
et  Q-eniil.  ad  Relig.  Chr.  accip.,  Gron.  1839 ;  BOELES,  de  Mysteriis 
in  Eel.  Chr.,  Gron.  1843  ;  VAN  BELL,  de  Patefact.  Christ,  indok, 
Lugd.  Batav.  1849.  And,  above  all,  the  dissertation  of  LAMP- 
ING, (Diss.)  Pauli  de  prcedeet.  Doctrinam  exponens,  Traj.  1860. 
Also  the  work  of  G.  W.  KRUMMACHER,  "  The  Doctrine  of  Elec- 
tion "  (Exposition  of  Rom.  9,  11),  Duisburg,  1856.  [Compare 
also  the  Commentaries  of  Ellicott  on  Galatians  and  Ephesians ; 
and  Goodwin's  Exposition  of  various  passages  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Ephesians.  2  vols.  (reprinted),  Edin.  1861.] 


180  Biblical  Theology  of  ike  New  Testament. 

Questions  for  consideration. — What  is  with  Paul  the  proper 
essence  of  the  Gospel  ? — What  does  he  teach  in  Col.  2,  16,  17  ? 
— The  Gospel  a  revealed  mystery. — The  way  of  life  under  the 
old  covenant,  Kom.  4. — The  psychological  ground  for  Paul's 
doctrine  of  predestination. — Its  relation  to  the  Pauline  univers- 
alism. — Connection  and  difference  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  with 
that  of  Augustine  and  Calvin. — Does  Paul  teach  reprobation  as 
unconditionally  as  he  proclaims  predestination  to  everlasting 
life  ? — To  what  extent  has  the  Apostle  succeeded  in  removing 
the  objection  that  God  is  made  the  author  of  sin? — Does  Paul's 
doctrine  of  predestination  contain  no  necessary  premises  to  that 
of  the  restoration  of  all  things  ? — Argument  of  Kom.  8,  28-30. 
— Sense,  beauty,  and  power  of  Rom.  8,  31-39. — The  doxology, 
Eom.  11,  33-36. 

§38. 
The  Christ. 

The  Divine  plan  of  salvation  has  for  its  centre  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  the  Saviour  of  sinners,  who  appeared  on  earth  in 
human  flesh,  that,  as  the  second  Adam,  He  might  be  the  spirit- 
ual head  of  the  new  humanity.  Relatively  little  does  Paul  com- 
municate concerning  the  Lord's  earthly  history ;  but  every 
conception  of  His  person  in  which  He  is  regarded  either  as  man 
only  in  appearance,  or  as  a  mere  man,  is  expressly  condemned 
by  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle. 

1.  It  belongs  to  the  excellencies  of  the  Pauline  theology,  that 
he  ever  considers  the  plan  of  salvation  in  connection  with  Him 
in  whom  it  has  been  realized.  Christ  is  for  him  the  centre,  not 
merely  of  the  Gospel,  but  of  the  whole  history  of  the  world. 
Although  in  his  teaching  he  throughout  takes  his  departure 
from  man  (§  33.  4),  he  yet  rises  unceasingly  to  Him  in  whom 
the  ideal  of  mankind  is  realized ;  and  while  he  manifestly  lays 
greater  stress  upon  his  testimony  concerning  the  work  of  the 
Lord  than  upon  that  concerning  His  person,  he  has  yet  ex- 
pressed himself  regarding  the  latter  in  a  manner  which  leaves 
no  room  for  doubt  as  to  what  he  really  thinks  on  this  subject. 


The  Christ.  181 

2.  The  Tubingen  school  has  asserted  that  the  Christology  of 
the  latest  letters  preserved  under  the  name  of  Paul  exhibits  a 
different  character  from  that  of  the  four  whose  genuineness  it 
acknowledges.     In  itself,  this  would  occasion  no  difficulty  ;  cer- 
tainly not  if  we  believe  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  leading  the 
Apostle,  in  giving  this  part  of  his  testimony  also,  from  light  to 
light,  from  strength  to  strength.     If  those'  epistles  in  which  we 
find  his  loftiest  Christological  thoughts,  e.  g.,  those  to  the  Colos- 
sians  and  Philippians,  were  composed  in  the  time  of,  and  partly 
with  reference  to,  the  earliest  Gnostic  errors,  nothing  prevents 
us  from  supposing  that  precisely  this  error  urged  the  Apostle 
so  much  the  more  powerfully  to  declare  the  truth.     The  case 
would  certainly  be  different  if  anything  were  asserted  in  the 
later  epistles  which  was  denied  in  the  earlier,  or  the  converse. 
How  little  this  is  really  the  case  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that 
the  points  of  departure  and  commencement  for  the  lines   of 
thought  which  run  through  his  latest  writings  are  constantly  to 
be  discovered  in  his  earliest. 

3.  That  Paul  relates  but  little  of  the  words,  deeds,  and  events 
of  the  Lord's  earthly  life,  strikes  us  at  once,  from  a  glance  at 
his  writings.     With  the  exception  of  a  single  saying  (Acts  20, 
35)  he  never  appeals  to  the  words  of  the  Master,  and  even  of 
the  history  of  His  life  he  mentions  only  a  few  particulars.     The 
attempt  has  been  made  on  apologetic  grounds  to  gather  a  life  of 
Jesus  out  of  the  writings  of  Paul ;  but  the  harvest  has  been 
only  scanty.     The  First  Epistle  of  Peter  alone  contains  more 
reminiscences,   e.  g.,   of  the  history  of  our   Lord's  sufferings, 
than  all  the  Epistles  of  Paul.     The  cause  is  to  be  sought  in  the 
fact  that  Paul  had  no  personal  intercourse  with  the  Lord,  and 
attaches  to  this  privilege,  the  want  of  which  had  been  so  richly 
compensated  in  his  experience,  but  a  subordinate  value  (2  Cor. 
5,  16).     Not  the  teaching  and  suffering,  but  the  risen  and  glori- 
fied Christ,  is  here  above  all  brought  into  the  foreground ;  he 
has  less  to  do  with  Jesus  in  himself  than  with  Jesus  as  the 
Christ.     With  the  proclamation  of  this  truth  he  comes  forward 
immediately  after  his  conversion  (Acts  9,  20,  where  Jesus  is  to  be 
read  instead  of  Christ,  and  Son  of  God  must  be  understood  as  a 
title  of  the  Messiah).     He  defends  it,  in  presence  of  Jew  and 
Gentile,  by  an  appeal  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  (Acts  17,  3  ;  18,  5) ; 


182  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

and  though  he  repeatedly  lays  stress  upon  the  circumstances 
that  the  Lord  sprang  from  David's  seed  (Eom.  1,  3 ;  2  Tim.  2, 
8),  this  is  doubtless  because  His  princely  descent  was  an  ab- 
solutely necessary  condition  of  His  Messiahship. 

4.  There  is  no  ground  for  supposing  that  Paul  doubted  in 
any  respect  the  true  humanity  of  the  Lord.  He  describes  Him 
as  being  born  of  a  woman  (Gal.  4,  4),  partaker  of  the  weakness 
of  our  nature  (2  Cor.  13,  4),  and  sets  His  mind  and  feelings  as 
an  example  before  the  eyes  of  His  followers  (Phil.  2,  5).  But 
just  as  little  can  we  doubt  that  Paul  saw  in  the  Lord  one  who 
was  more  than  man  ;  and  that  not  merely  in  the  middle  or  at  the 
close  of  his  Apostolic  labors,  but  at  their  very  beginning.  He 
had,  indeed,  beheld  the  persecuted  Nazarene  in  more  than 
earthly  glory  (Acts  26,  13,  sqq.),  and  at  once  acknowledged  that 
He  whom  the  Jews  had  crucified  was  none  less  than  the 
Lord  of  Glory  himself  (1  Cor.  2,  8).  Does  this  mean  simply 
that  He  is  now  living  in  glory  ?  Even  the  peculiar  manner  in 
which  Paul  speaks  of  the  human  nature  in  Christ,  leads  to  the 
supposition  that  such  an  explanation  is  too  weak.  He  calls 
Him,  indeed,  the  second  man,  but  the  one  who  is  "  from  heaven, " 
(1  Cor.  15,  47,  according  to  the  shorter  reading)  and  declares 
that  God  sent  his  Son  "in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh"  (Eom. 
8,  3),  which  would,  at  least,  sound  strange,  if  this  Son  had 
claimed  no  personal  pre-existence,  and  had  not  very  clearly 
distinguished  himself  from  sinful  flesh.  That  this  latter  also  is 
the  view  of  the  Apostle  is  increasingly  clear,  when  we  hear  him 
designate  Christ  as  the  image  of  God,  in  whose  countenance  the 
glory  of  God  is  seen  (2  Cor.  4,  4-6) ;  God's  own  beloved  Son 
(Rom.  8,  32 ;  compare  Eph.  1,  6),  as  such  beyond  doubt,  de- 
clared (proclaimed)  with  power  by  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead  (Eom.  1,  4) ;  proclaimed,  but  by  no  means  constituted,  the 
Son  of  God  thereby.  How  else  were  it  possible  that  He  was 
already  working  under  the  old  covenant  (1  Cor.  10,  4.  9),  yea, 
as  the  Apostle  plainly  teaches,  was  rich  with  God  even  before 
His  voluntary  incarnation  (2  Cor.  8,  9)  ?  Certainly  he  distin- 
guishes the  Son  from  the  Father,  and  places  Him  in  regard  to 
the  Father  in  a  relation  of  definite  dependence  (1  Cor.  3,  23 ; 
11,  3  ;  Eph.  1,  17) ;  but,  nevertheless,  he  does  not  hesitate  a 
moment  to  speak  of  Him  as  the  mediate  cause  through  which 


The  Christ.  183 

all,  without  exception,  has  been  called  into  existence  (1  Cor.  8, 
6),  tacitly  to  apply  to  Him  that  which  in  the  Old  Testament  is 
spoken  of  God  (Kom.  10,  13),  and  to  exalt  Him — for  only  thus 
can  we  at  least  read  or  understand  the  words,  Kom.  9,  5 — as 
God,  above  all  blessed  for  ever. 

5.  We  regard  it  as  a  hopeless  undertaking,  in  presence  of 
such  expressions  of  the  Apostle's  mind,  to  persist  in  the  asser- 
tion that  the  Christ  of  the  four  universally  acknowledged  epis- 
tles is  nothing  but  the  heavenly  man  (BAUK).  Even  the  con- 
nection into  which  His  name  is  brought  with  that  of  God  the 
Father  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  other^ 
leads  us  to  a  higher  conception ;  and  the  metaphysical  element 
of  the  Pauline  Christology  becomes  still  more  evident  when  we 
direct  our  attention  to  his  later  utterances,  and  observe  in  them, 
instead  of  conflicting  ideas,  the  fairest  harmony  and  develop- 
ment. This  is  seen  to  be  the  case  in  the  locus  classicus  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians  (Phil.  2,  5-11),  where  he  represents 
the  Son  of  God  first  in  his  pre-mundane  existence,  then  in  his 
earthly  humiliation,  and  finally  in  his  heavenly  glory ;  and  de- 
scribes the  incarnation  as  a  voluntary  laying  aside  of  this  orig- 
inal form  of  God  in  which  He  might  have  continued  to  live  and 
reign.  We  think,  however,  especially  of  the  sublime  words  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  (Colos.  1,  15-20),  in  which  the 
Apostle  places  the  Son  of  God's  love  in  a  relation,  on  the  one 
hand  to  the  Father,  on  the  other  to  the  world,  and  again  to  the 
kingdom  of  God,  which  would  be  absolutely  inconceivable, 
unless  in  Him  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  (Colos.  2,  9)  dwelt 
bodily  as  in  a  holy  temple.  Only  on  the  assumption  that  this 
latter  was  really  the  Apostle's  idea,  can  we  understand  the  appel- 
lation which  he  gives  to  the  Lord — as  an  unbiassed  exegesis 
seems  to  require  us  to  understand  his  words — of  "  our  great 
God  and  Saviour,"  (Tit.  2,  13),  and  the  doxology  addressed  to 
Him  at  the  close  of  his  Apostolic  course  (2  Tim.  4,  18  &),  which 
he,  the  strict  monotheist,  would,  without  doubt,  have  been  the 
first  to  condemn  as  a  sinful  deification  of  the  creature,  had  not 
Christ,  according  to  his  conviction,  possessed  a  nature  and  dig- 
nity which  raises  Him  above  all  created  beings. 

6.  And  yet,  however  certain  and  important  all  this  may  be, 
it  does  not  explain  the  entirely  unique  position  which  Christ 


184  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

occupies  in  the  Pauline  scheme  of  doctrine.  Not  as  a  super- 
natural manifestation  or  Divine  person  itself,  but  as  man,  the 
man  by  way  of  excellence — precisely  because  He  is  from 
heaven — is  the  Lord  all  things  to  Paul,  not  only  for  his  faith 
and  life,  but  also  for  his  thinking.  It  is  more  than  an  accident 
that  he  speaks  of  the  mediator  between  (rod  and  man  with  so 
great  emphasis  as  the  man  Christ  Jesus  (1  Tim.  2,  5) ;  the 
whole  work  of  redemption  had  been  to  Paul  entirely  inconceiv- 
able were  this  man  human  only  in  appearance.  The  philo- 
sophic spirit  of  the  Apostle  manifests  its  striving  after  unity 
notably  in  the  fact,  that  in  the  history  of  mankind  he  repeat- 
edly discovers  a  point  of  unity,  and  as  from  the  first  Adam  he 
sees  sin  and  death,  so  from  the  second  he  sees  redemption  and 
life  proceed  (Kom.  5,  12-21 ;  1  Cor.  15,  21-22).  He  contrasts 
Christ  with  Adam,  as  the  higher  with  the  lower,  as  the  spiritual 
with  the  merely  natural  principle  of  life  (1  Cor.  15,  45-47). 
Because  he  was  perfectly  Divine,  He  could  be  perfectly  human, 
and,  in  so  far  as  humanity  enters  into  a  personal  union  with 
Him,  at  the  same  time,  the  Creator  of  a  new  principle  of  life. 
On  this  account  Paul  attaches  so  great  a  value  to  the  absolute 
purity  and  sinlessness  of  the  Lord  (2  Cor.  5,  21 ;  Phil.  2,  8 ; 
comp.  Kom.  8,  3 ;  15,  3).  There  lies  in  this  also  the  ground 
for  the  supposition,  that  if  Paul  does  not  mention  the  super- 
natural conception  and  holy  birth  of  the  Lord,  he  yet  cannot 
have  denied  or  doubted  it.  In  connection  with  his  doctrine  of 
sin,  it  is  also  inconceivable  that,  according  to  his  view,  the  sec- 
ond Adam  came  less  immediately  than  the  first,  through  a 
miraculous  intervention  of  Divine  power.  As  the  faultless 
head  of  a  new  humanity,  Christ  has  for  Paul  the  highest,  yea, 
an  everlasting  importance.  And  here  we  reach  the  point  at 
which  we  can  understand  the  peculiarity  of  his  own  Soteri- 
ology. 

Comp.  our  "  Christology  of  the  N.  T.,"  bl.  214-250;  BEY- 
SCHLAG,  "For  the  Pauline  Christology"  in  the  Studien  und 
Kritiken,  1860,  S.  431  ff;  "  Christology  of  the  N.  I7.,"  S 
201-256;  KOLTOFF,  Vita  Jesu  Ghristi  a  Paulo  Apost  adum- 
brata  (1842) :  KABIGER,  Comment,  de  Christol.  Paulina  contra 
Baurium,  Bresl.  1852.  On  Philip.  2,  6-8,  the  Commentaries  of 
MEYER,  [ALFORD,  and  ELLICOTT].  On  Colos.  1,  15-20  see 


The   Work  of  Redemption.  185 

the  Dissert,  of  S.  HOFMEIJER,  de  n$uioi6*<*,  Traject.  1856,  and 
of  J.  CRAMER,  de  Arianismo,  Traj.  1858. 

Questions  for  consideration. — Connection  between  the  Pauline 
Christology  and  the  doctrine  of  predestination. — Nature  and 
importance  of  that  which  Paul  communicates  regarding  the  his- 
tory of  the  Lord. — Exposition  and  defence  of  the  most  import- 
ant texts  here  referred  to. — Critical  review  of  the  texts  in 
which,  according  to  the  ordinary  reading  and  exposition,  the 
title  of  Qe6g  is  given  to  the  Lord. — Harmony  and  difference  be- 
tween the  first  and  the  second  Adam,  according  to  Paul. 

§  39. 
The  Work  of  Redemption. 

The  whole  earthly  and  heavenly  life  of  Christ — especially 
His  voluntary  self-surrender  to  the  death  of  the  Cross,  and  His 
glorious  resurrection  on  the  third  day — has  the  definite  aim  of 
redeeming  mankind  from  the  guilt  and  dominion  of  sin,  and 
thereby  restoring  to  man  the  salvation  he  has  lost  through  the 
disobedience  of  the  first  Adam.  At  the  same  time,  the  waj* 
which  the  Gospel  opens  to  this  goal  is  diametrically  opposed  to 
that  which  the  law  presented :  the  justification  of  the  sinner 
herein  proclaimed  is  a  justification  only  through  faith. 

1.  The  soteriology  of  Paul  is  not  only  richer  than  his  Chris- 
tology, but  it  bears,  besides  this,  a  highly  peculiar  character. 
This  peculiarity  is  manifest  even  in  the  first  Apostolic  mis- 
sionary address  of  his  with  which  we  are  acquainted  (Acts  13, 
38.  39).  The  Pauline  doctrine  of  redemption  is,  above  all 
things,  a  doctrine  of  justification  (comp.  §  33,  3),  a  doctrine 
which  he  presents  with  evident  preference ;  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  more  thetically  (i.  e.  by  way  of  statement),  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  more  polemically,  and  which  he  once 
even  (Rom.  1,  16.  17)  announces  as  the  essential  doctrine  of 
the  Gospel.  By  the  term  "  righteousness  of  God  "  (dixaioaivij 
Seov)  Paul  understands  in  this  connection  no  attribute  of  God, 
but  a  state  before  Him ;  a  righteousness  conferred  by  God  through 

12 


186  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

grace — in  the  way  of  imputation — upon  the  sinner,  whom  God 
regards  and  treats  as  just ;  and  which  is  consequently  diamet- 
rically opposed  to  any  self-righteousness  before  God,  which  the 
sinner  seeks  to  establish  by  the  most  exact  fulfillment  of  the 
demands  of  the  law  (Bom.  10,  3 ;  Phil.  3,  9).  With  his  eye 
fixed  upon  the  distinction  once  conferred  upon  Abraham  (Gen. 
15,  6),  the  true  Israelite — especially  the  Pharisee — knew  no 
higher  blessing  than  that  of  being  righteous  (p"1^)  before  God. 
Paul  himself  had  formerly  sought  this  in  the  way  of  works 
(Phil.  3,  4-8),  but  had  recognized  the  folly  of  this  attempt,  and 
had  acknowledged  the  highest  value  of  the  Gospel  precisely  in 
the  fact  that  it  opens  up  an  entirely  different  way  to  the  de- 
sired goal.  He  mentions,  it  is  true,  and  glories  in,  other  bless- 
ings conferred  by  God  in  Christ  (1  Cor.  1,  30),  but  nevertheless 
justification  occupies  the  highest  place  (Rom.  10,  4)  in  his  es- 
timation. In  Christ  the  sinner,  who  regards  personal  participa- 
tion in  the  favor  of  God  as  the  highest  of  all  the  blessings  of 
salvation,  finds  that  which  he  elsewhere  seeks  in  vain. 

2.  If  we  ask  the  Apostle  what  Christ  has  done  and  is  yet  do- 
ing to  this  end,  we  find  that  even  the  Lord's  coming  in  the 
flesh  is  regarded  by  him  as  connected  with  the  condemnation  of 
sin,  but  thereby  also  with  the  restoration  of  the  sinner  (Rom.  8, 
3.  4 ;  1  Tim.  1,  15).     He  likewise  directs  us  to  His  precepts 
and  example  as  the  rule  of  the  new  life  (Gal.  6,  2  ;  Phil.  2,  5). 
But,  above  all,  he  presents,  as  of  supreme  importance,  the  death 
of  Christ  and  His  resurrection  from  the  grave  ;  two  events  be- 
tween which  he  sees  the  closest  connection  (Rom.  4,  25).     This 
is  the  truth  which  he  first  proclaims  to  the  Corinthian  Church, 
and  of  which  he  has  afterwards  to  remind  them  (1  Cor.  15,  3.  4). 
Hence,  gathering  into  a  single  sentence  the  burden  of  all  his 
preaching,  he  points  to  Jesus  Christ  the  crucified  (1  Cor.  1,  23  ; 
2,  2 ;  Gal.  6,  14).     Yet  he  does  not  attach  any  less  value  to  the 
life  of  the  Lord  in  glory  than  to  His  life  in  His  humiliation. 
Let  us  see  how  he  insists  on  the  connection  of  both  with  the 
work  of  salvation. 

3.  That  Christ  truly  died  is  no  where  proved  by  Paul,  be- 
cause it  was  not,  like  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  doubted. 
But  so  much  the  greater  stress  does  he  lay  upon  the  fact  that 
He  must  suffer  (Acts  26,  23) ;  and  far  from  finding  therein  only 


The  Work  of  Redemption.  187 

a  mysterious  lot,  lie  presents  the  Lord's  giving  of  himself  up 
for  the  suffering  of  death  rather  as  an  act  of  high  moral  signifi- 
cance ;  an  act,  however,  in  no  degree  arbitrary,  much  less 
separated  from  the  whole  life  which  preceded  it.  The  later 
theological  distinction  between  the  active  and  passive  obedience 
of  Christ,  is  least  of  all  to  be  justified  by  an  appeal  to  our 
Apostle.  The  whole  life  of  the  Lord  is  with  him  one  act  of 
obedience,  which  finds  its  point  of  culmination  in  the  death  on 
the  cross  (Phil.  2,  8).  He  was  not  merely  delivered  (Rom.  4, 
25),  but  gave  himself  up  (Gal.  1,  4 ;  2,  20),  according  to  the 
will  and  counsel  of  the  Father  ;  moved  thereto  by  a  love  which 
passeth  all  understanding  (Eph.  3,  19),  and  which,  gloriously 
displayed  towards  the  unworthy,  bears  the  character  of  grace 
(2  Cor.  8,  9).  Because  the  Lord's  death  is  such  a  moral  act,  it 
is  a  sacrifice  which  could  be  only  well  pleasing  to  God  (Eph. 
5,  2).  On  account  of  this  perfect  harmony  of  both,  the  Apostle 
could  elsewhere  say,  God  spared  not  His  own  Son,  but  de- 
livered Him  up  for  us  all  (Rom.  8,  32). 

4.  As  to  the  true  nature  of  this  sacrifice,  Paul  does  not  leave 
us  long  in  uncertainty,  when  he  writes  that  God  set  forth  the 
Saviour  as  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  (ttuaifaiov,  Rom.  3,  25) 
through  faith  in  His  blood.  For  the  same  reason,  he  calls 
Christ  in  His  death  the  Passover  of  Christians  (1  Cor.  5,  7) ; 
for  the  Paschal  Lamb  also  was  originally  a  sin-offering.  Mani- 
festly he  implies  that  by  the  self-sacrifice  of  Christ  was  really 
effected  that  which  was  symbolically  represented  by  the  Mosaic 
ritual  (Colos.  2,  17).  Such  a  covering  of  guilt  before  the  eye  of 
God  was  necessary  on  God's  side  for  the  manifestation  (evdetgig) 
of  His  righteousness,  on  account  of  the  temporary  passing  over 
of  sins  formerly  committed  (Rom.  3,  25) ;  and  indispensable  for 
man,  in  order  to  procure  for  him  that  blessedness  which  he  had 
forfeited  through  his  sins.  There  is,  consequently,  according 
to  Paul,  a  direct  connection  between  the  Lord's  self-surrender, 
and  the  sins  of  the  world  (Rom.  4,  25).  Not  merely  by  means 
of  sinners,  but  on  behalf  of  sinners  (1  Cor.  15,  3),  did  Christ 
die  ;  and  the  consequence  which  this  act  at  once  brings  with  it 
is,  that  these  sinners,  on  their  entering  into  communion  with 
Him,  no  longer  need  to  die  for  their  sins.  Death  is  the  punish- 
ment of  sin,  and  from  this  revelation  of  wrath  they  are  deliv- 


188  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

ered  in  Christ  Through  his  blood  we  have  redemption 
(dTroAtfrpuo-tg),  and  this  is  concentrated  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
because  in  forgiveness  is  already  contained  (in  principle)  every 
other  blessing. 

5.  The  extent  of  this  blessedness  will  be  treated  of  hereafter 
(§  40).  Here  the  remark  may  suffice,  that  the  righteousness 
(diKuioavvt])  before  God  which  is  the  portion  of  the  believer,  is  a 
fruit  of  justification  (dixatoaig),  and  this,  in  turn,  is  the  fruit  of 
the  shed  blood  of  atonement.  No  wonder  that  the  price  at 
which  such  a  salvation  was  obtained  is  called  by  the  Apostle 
great  (1  Cor.  6,  20) ;  a  statement  which  is  only  apparently  in 
conflict  with  another  statement,  namely,  that  we  are  saved  by 
grace.  The  former  has  reference  to  the  immediate  ground ;  the 
latter  to  the  source  and  primary  cause  of  the  benefit.  If  we 
ask  the  Apostle  as  to  the  connection  between  the  propitiatory 
death  of  the  Lord  and  the  justification  of  the  sinner,  he  replies 
that  the  righteousness  in  which  the  sinner  may  now  glory  is  an 
imputed  righteousness,  that  of  the  righteous  and  holy  Christ. 
By  virtue  of  the  law  of  the  most  intimate  vital  communion,  all 
which  is  ours  becomes  His,  and  all  which  is  His  becomes  ours. 
He  is  treated  as  personal  sin  (2  Cor.  5,  21),  in  order  that  sinners 
may  in  Him  be  regarded  and  treated  as  righteous.  He  bears 
on  the  cross  the  curse  of  the  law,  in  order  that  He  may  redeem 
us  therefrom  (Gal  3,  13).  Paul,  then,  doubtless,  conceives  of 
the  Lord  as  dying  not  merely  for  the  benefit  of,  but  actually 
instead  of- — but  of  whom?  In  general  he  mentions  "ungodly 
ones  "  (Rom.  5,  6),  without  any  restriction  [of  race  or  people], 
affirms  that  God  will  have  all  to  be  saved,  and  glories  in  Christ 
as  the  Mediator — a  word  which  is  found  only  in  Paul,  and 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — between  God  and  men  (1  Tim. 
2,  4.  5).  But  especially  is  it  Christians  who  know  that  One 
has  died  for  them  all,  in  consequence  of  which  they  now  all  live 
(Rom.  8,  32 ;  2  Cor.  5,  15).  There  is  no  contradiction  between 
the  one  statement  and  the  other,  if  we  simply  observe  a  just 
distinction  between  the  design  and  the  fruit  of  the  Lord's 
propitiatory  death.  Where  this  fruit  is  enjoyed,  there  the  self- 
surrender  of  the  Son  of  God  is  at  the  same  time  regarded  as  the 
highest  revelation  of  a  love  which  saves  the  sinner  by  the  self 
same  act  by  which  it  righteously  condemns  the  sin.  The  idea 


The  Work  of  Redemption.  189 

of  a  conflict  between  God's  righteousness  and  grace  is  of  later 
origin  by  some  centuries,  than  the  writings  of  Paul. 

6.  The  expiation  of  sin  (lW?ifo*»')  is  the  basis  of  the  reconcil- 
iation (xamUuyij)  between  the  sinner  and  his  holy  Creator.     In 
this  latter  sense,  also,  the  atonement  proceeds  from  God,  who 
on  this  account  is  called  not  only  "the  Justifier  "  (Kom.  8,  33, 
6  5tx«twj>)  but  also  "  the  Reconciler  "  (2  Cor.  5,  19,  xaTaUdaawy) ; 
who  has  in  Christ  reconciled  the  whole  world  (x6auos)  to  him- 
self; yea,  has  brought  about  a  reconciliation  in  divided  humanity 
(Eph.  2,  14-16),  and  has  thus  restored  peace  between  heaven 
and  earth  (Colos.  1,  20).     For  the  enmity  existed  not  on  the 
part  of  God,  but  only  on  the  part  of  men  (Rom.  5,  10 ;  8,  7), 
and  is  now,   by  the  manifestation  of  the  highest  love,  van- 
quished and  slain  on  the  Cross  (Eph.  2,   14-16).      Thus,  by 
the  death  of  the  Lord,  the  broken  bond  is  restored  between 
man  and  his  God,  as  well  as  between  Jew  and  Gentile,  and  the 
power  of  ^darkness  vanquished  and  led  in  open  triumph  (Colos. 
2,  14,  15) ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  all  believers  are,  through 
the  love  of  Christ,   united  in  one  holy  communion  (Eph.  5, 
25-27). 

7.  The  community  whose  guilt  is  thus  covered,   is  at  the 
same  time  in  Christ  delivered  .from  the  dominion  of  sin  ;  the 
forgiveness  of  sin,  the  great  aim  of  His  death,  becoming  thus 
the  means  to  a  higher  aim — the  sanctification  of  all  His  people. 
In  the  Apostle's  conception,  the  one  is  inseparably  connected 
with  the  other.     On  the  one  hand,  it  is  certain  that  Christians, 
on  account  of  the  death  of  Christ,  no  longer  need  to  die  for 
their  sins ;  on  the  other  hand,  that  they  have,  with  Him,  died 
to  sin  (2  Cor.  5,  14,  Greek  text).     The  communion  of  faith  be- 
tween the  Lord  and  them,  symbolised  in  baptism,  is  so  close 
that  because  He  has  died  to  sin  they  may  be  regarded  as  being, 
with   Him,  dead   to  sin   (Rom.   6,   3-11).     The   cruel  tyrant, 
whose  wages  they  here  once  received  (in  Him),  has,  in  conse- 
quence thereof,  lost  all  right  to  them,  and  all  claim  upon  them. 
They  are  henceforth  to  regard  themselves  as  dead  to  sin,  that  they 
may  live  exclusively  to  God.     The  death  of  Christ  is  not  only 
the  life  of  His  people,  but  also  the  crucifixion  of  their  old  man. 
Their  spiritual  unity  with  Him,  in  other  words,  renders  it  im- 
possible for  them  any  longer  to  serve  sin;  through  faith  in 


190  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

Him,  its  dominion  is,  in  principle,  destroyed.  That  this  is  in- 
deed the  ultimate  aim  of  the  Lord's  death  we  are  reminded  by 
the  Apostle  in  various  ways  in  his  epistles  from  the  earliest  to 
the  latest.  (See,  for  example.  1  Thess.  5,  10 ;  (ral.  1,  4;  2,  20; 
2  Cor.  5,  15;  1  Cor.  6,  20;  Rom.  8,  4 ;  Eph.  5,  2;  Colos.  1, 
22 ;  Titus  2,  14).  Not  only  to  individuals,  but  to  the  whole 
community,  does  this  gracious  purpose  extend  (Eph.  5,  25-27). 
And  it  can  and  will  be  so  much  the  more  certainly  accom- 
plished, as  Christ  is  not  merely  the  Dead  but  also  the  Eisen 
Christ. 

8.  Far  from  separating  for  a  moment  the  Lord's  death  from 
His  new  life,   Paul  rather  brings  both  facts  into  such  close 
connection,  that  we  might  almost  doubt  which  of  them,  in  his 
estimation,  holds  the  first  place.     It  is  at  least  certain  that  with 
him  the  resurrection  is  not  of  less  soteriological  importance  than 
the  death  of  our  Lord  on  the  Cross ;  yea,  that  in  a  certain  sense 
he  gives  the  preeminence  to  the  former  (Rom.  4,  2§ ;  5,  10 ; 
8,  34).     No  wonder,  since  the  resurrection  is,  on  the  one  hand, 
the  pledge  of  the  certainty  and  perfection  of    the  completed 
atonement ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  fountain,  the  type,  and  the 
power  of  the  new  life  of  those  who  are  spiritually  one  with  the 
risen  Christ. 

9.  We  cannot  feel  surprised  that  Paul,  not  less  than  Peter 
(§  27),  places  in  the  foreground  (Acts  13,  30  ;  17,  3.  31 ;  23,  6 ; 
2  Tim.  2,  8,  and  many  other  passages)  the  resurrection  of  the 
Lord  ;  yea,  with  warmth  defends  it  (1  Cor.  15,  4-8).     In  his  case 
likewise  the  new  life  sprang  from  the  sight  of  the  Risen  One, 
and  to  him  the  whole  Gospel  stood  or  fell  with  the  recognition 
of  this  indisputable  fact  (1  Cor.  15,  14-20.     Yet  we  must  not 
overlook — what  has  indeed  been   arbitrarily  denied — that  he 
everywhere  regards  this  resurrection  very  definitely  as  a  restora- 
tion of  the  body  to  life,  and  a  return  from  the  grave.     Of  what 
significance — if  this  is  not  to  be  firmly  held — is  his  declaration 
[to  the  Corinthians]  that  the  Lord  was  buried,  that  He  rose 
again  the  third  day,  and  appeared  unto  His  disciples?     Be- 
tween the  continuance  of  a  purely  spiritual  existence  which  He 
has  in  common  with  all  the  dead,  and  "  our  justification  "  (Rom. 
4,  25),  no  rational  connection  is  conceivable.     Besides,  only  a 
real,  i.  e.,  bodily  resurrection,  could  be  a  prophecy  of  the  future 


The  Work  of  Redemption.  191 

bodily  resurrection  of  believers  (Rom.  8,  11 ;  1  Cor.  15,  21-23  ; 
Phil.  3,  21). 

10.  Through   the   resurrection,   the   Lord,   after  a  previous 
humiliation,  passed  into  a  state  of  glory  in  which,  with  no 
further  suffering,    he  can  evermore   live  unto  God  (i-om.   6, 
10).     Only  twice  does  the  Apostle  mention  the  circumstance  of 
the  visible  ascension  of  the  Lord  (1  Tim.  3,  16;  Eph.  4,  7-10); 
in  the  latter  of  these  (as  it  would  seem),  in  contrast  with  his 
descent  into   the   region  of  the  dead,   which  we   found   also 
referred  to  by  Peter  (§  27).     So  much  the  more  emphatically 
does  he  dwell  upon   the  work  of  the  Redeemer  in  heaven, 
which,  not  less  than  His  earthly  life,  is  consecrated  to  the  salva- 
tion of  His  people.     Exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  the  Father, 
He  not  only  intercedes  for  them  (Rom.  8,  34) ;  but  also  hears 
and  answers  them,  when  they  on  their  part  call  upon  Him  (1  Cor. 
1,  2 ;  2  Cor.  12,  8.  9  ;  comp.  Acts  23,  11).     He  reigns  not  only 
through  the  moral  power  of  the  truth,  but  immediately  and 
personally  in  the  Church ;  and  is,  at  the  same  time,  head  over 
all  for  the  Church,  to  make  all  subject  to  His  power  (Eph.  1, 
20-23),  and  to  fill  all  things  with  His  life-giving  energy  (Eph. 
4,  10).     He  is  excepted  from  this  dominion,  from  whom  it  pro- 
ceeded, to  whom  it  will  one  day  return  (1  Cor.  15,  24-28),  and 
in  whose  glorification  it  must  of  necessity  end  (Phil.  2,  9-11). 

11.  The  exaltation  of  Christ  is  consequently  for  himself  the 
reward    of   His  perfect  obedience,  but  for  all  His  people  the 
fountain  of  salvation.     Reconciled  to  (rod  through  His  death, 
they  are  saved  by  His  life,  yea,  themselves  live  in  consequence 
of  the  power  which  unceasingly  flows  forth  and  passes  over  from 
the  head  to  the  members  (Rom.  5,  10 ;  Eph.  1,  22.  23).     Thus  it 
is  clear  that  the  saving  work  of  Christ  on  earth  and  in  heaven 
is,  according  to  the  view  of  Paul,  an  inseparable  whole  (1  Tim. 
3,  16),  and  that  through  the  obedience,  thus  crowned,  of  the 
second  Adam,  the  disobedience  of  the  first  is  more  than  repaired 
(Rom.  5,  18-21).     His  righteousness  becomes  theirs;  but  only 
in  so  far  as  through  faith  they  have  become  personally  one 
with  Him.     As  opposed  to  an  impossible  justification  by  works 
of  law,   there  is  brought  in  a  perfect  justification  by  grace, 
through  faith  alone,  not  at  all  for  the  sake  of  faith  (Rom.  3,  28). 
The  doctrine  of  the  Apostle  concerning  the  nature  and  fruits  of 
this  faith,  we  shall  presently  proceed  to  investigate. 


192  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

Comp.  VAN  OOSTERZEE  "  Christology"  II.  bl.  251-287 ;  for 
particular  points,  TISCHENDORF,  Doctrina  Pauli,  Ap.  de  m 
mortis  Chr.  satisfactorid,  Lips.  1837;  LIPSIUS,  "  The  Pauline  Doc- 
trine of  Justification"  Leipz.  1853  ;  RAUWENHOFF,  Dissertatio  de 
loco  Paulino  qui  est  de  Jinndaei,  Lugd.  Bat.  1852 ;  BOK,  Dis- 
quisitio  exhib.  Pauli.  Ap.  doct.  de  TTJ  \4nolvx^(je^  Amstel.  1856 ; 
BONJSTARD,  de  la  Resurrection  de  Christ  dans  la  Theol.  de  St.  Paul, 
Strasb.  1862. 

Questions  for  consideration. — Is  development  and  progress  to 
be  observed  in  the  Apostle's  teaching  concerning  the  work  of 
redemption? — What  is  the  sense  of  1  Cor.  1,  30  ? — What  is  sug- 
gested by  1  Cor.  1,  13  &  (compare  Col.  1,  24)  as  to  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  Lord's  death  upon  the  Cross? — Investigation  of  the 
most  important  soteriological  utterances. — Wherein  lies,  accord- 
ing to  Paul,  the  connection  between  the  atoning  and  the  sancti- 
fying efficacy  of  the  death  of  the  Lord? — In  what  relation  do 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  stand  to  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  his  people  ? — In  what  sense  is  Christ  called  "  the 
first  fruits  of  them  that  are  fallen  asleep,"  1  Cor.  15,  20  ? — What 
is  the  teaching  of  Eph.  4,  8-10?— What  of  Phil.  2,  9-11,  as 
compared  with  1  Cor.  15,  24-28  ? — The  contrast  drawn  in  Rom. 
10,  4-10. 

§40. 
The  Way  of  Salvation. 

The  faith  which  thus  justifies  the  sinner  before  God,  consists 
in  a  confiding  surrender  of  one's  self  to  Christ,  and  an  enduring 
communion  with  Him.  It  is  a  faith  whose  seat  is  the  heart, 
whose  author  is  (rod,  whose  manifestation  is  the  new  life,  and 
whose  priceless  fruit  is  restoration  to  God's  favor  and  friend- 
ship, with  all  its  blessed  consequences,  even  on  this  side  the 
grave. 

1.  That  faith  alone  opens  the  way  to  salvation,  is  so  emphat- 
ically declared  (Acts  16,  31 ;  Rom.  10,  10)  by  Paul,  that  no  doubt 
as  to  his  view  is  possible.  An  express  definition  of  this  faith, 


The  Way  of  Salvation.  193 

however,  (such,  for  example,  as  in  Heb.  11,  1)  he  has  nowhere 
given,  and  we  must,  therefore,  gather  his  conception  of  faith 
from  scattered  intimations.  If  we  do  this,  we  discover  at  once 
that  with  Paul  faith  is  opposed,  not  to  knowledge,  but  on  the 
one  hand  to  sight  (2  Cor.  5,  7),  on  the  other  to  doubt  (Rom.  4, 
20).  Faith  is  consequently,  with  Paul,  a  firm  assurance  or  con- 
viction concerning  things  which,  being  either  invisible  or  yet 
future,  fall  without  the  sphere  of  natural  perception,  and,  con- 
sequently, cannot  be  proved  thereby. 

2.  This  faith,  inasmuch  as  it  justifies  the  sinner,  has  for  its 
object,  in  the  widest  sense,  God  (Rom.  4.  3-5.  24)  and  His 
promise — more  definitely  the  Gospel  (Phil.  1,  27  ;  2  Thes.  2,  13), 
and  the  saving  truth  therein   revealed;   but  constantly,  and 
above  all,  Him  who  is  the  great  center  of  this  Gospel  (Acts  16, 
31).     Even  where  the  Apostle   speaks  of  the  faith  of  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  Christian's  vocation  (Gal.  2,  16.  20 ;  Eph.  3,  12 ; 
Rom.   3,  26),  he  has  before  his  mind  no  other  faith  than  that 
which  is  directed  to  Him  as  its  object,  and  which  enters  into  the 
closest  union  with  Him.     Through  this  faith,  further,  is  estab- 
lished a  living  communion  with  Christ,  in  which  we,  so  to  speak, 
die  with  Him  and  rise  to  newness  of  life  (Rom.  6,  6  ;  Gal.  2,  20). 
This  faith  surrenders  itself  unconditionally  and  confidingly  to 
the  Lord,  and  in  turn  receives  from  Him  grace  and  strength 
(2  Cor.  12,  9).     Without  doubt  there  is  in  this  faith  also  an 
intellectual  element,  which  recognizes  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  the  Lord  as  indisputable  facts  (1  Thess.  4,  14) ;  but  these 
facts,  and  above  all,  Himself,  it  apprehends  with  the  heart  (Rom. 
10,  10).     The  heart  is  the  proper  seat  of  saving  faith,  which, 
preceded  by  an  acquaintance  with  the  Gospel,  itself  leads  to  a 
clear  and  certain  knowledge  of  the  things  which  are  freely 
given  of  God  in  Christ  (1  Cor.  2,  13  ;  Colos.  1,  9. 10 ;  Phil.  1,  9 ; 
2  Tim.  1,  12). 

3.  The  question  how  this  grace  arises  and  grows  in  man, 
Paul  answers  by  pointing  out  that  it  is  God  who  brings  sinners 
to  Christ  (Colos.  1, 12.  13).     He  calls  it  on  this  account  a  faith  of 
God's  operation  (Colos.  2,  12.  13),  and  designates  it  a  Divine  gift 
of  grace  (Phil.  1,  29).     Without  doubt  faith  comes  by  hearing 
(Rom.  10,  14-17),  but  no  planting  and  no  watering  can  avail 
unless  God  give  the  increase  (1  Cor.  3,  5-7).     The  strengthen- 


194  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

ing  of  the  faith  is  therefore  bestowed  as  a  heavenly  gift  (Eph.  3, 
16 ;  2  Thess.  1,  2),  and  the  honor  of  spiritual  growth  to  be  ren- 
dered exclusively  to  God  (2  Thess.  1,  3).  Where  God  has  medi- 
ately wrought  this  faith,  there  is  received,  as  the  fruit  of  believ- 
ing, the  Holy  Ghost  (Eph.  1, 13 ;  Gal.  3,  5),  who  dwells  not  only 
in  the  whole  Church  (1  Cor.  3,  16),  but  also  in  each  of  its  mem- 
bers individually  (I  Cor.  6, 19),  and  unites  them  most  intimately 
with  God  in  Christ.  This  Spirit  is  at  the  same  time  Himself  a 
Spirit  of  faith  (2  Cor.  4,  13) :  every  special  measure  or  every 
special  gift  of  this  faith  which  manifests  itself  in  the  Church  is 
His  work  (1  Cor.  12,  9 ;  Gal.  5,  22) ;  and  on  that  account  His 
abiding  communion  (2  Cor.  13,  14)  is  for  all  Christians  the 
blessing  most  to  be  desired. 

4.  The  possession  of  this  spirit  becomes  manifest  by  the  fruits 
thereof  (Gal.  5,  22),  and  the  new  life  is  the  development  of  the 
faith  thus  born.     Less  than  perhaps  might  have  been  expected, 
does  the  Apostle  speak  in  an  especial  manner  of  repentance. 
Without  doubt  he  proclaims  it  to  Jew  and  Gentile  (Acts  26,  20), 
and  teaches  that  it  is  necessary  even  for  Christians  after  falling 
anew  into  sin  (2  Cor.  7,  10) ;  while  for  unbelievers  it  is,  accord- 
ing to  his  view,  absolutely  indispensable,  in  order  to  come  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth  (2  Tim.  2,  25).     In  general,  however, 
he  is  speaking  to  believers,  as  being  now  in  truth  converted 
(1  Thess.  1,  9),  and  therefore  combines  in  one  the  demand  for 
repentance  and  faith  (Acts  20,  21).      No  wonder  that  man, 
through  faith,  is  brought  into  an  entirely  new  condition  of  life 
(2  Cor.  5,  17),  which  gradually  developes  itself  (2  Cor.  3,  18), 
and  attains  its  goal  only  when  all  that  is  old  has  passed  away, 
and  the  perfection  set  before  the  believer  is  attained  (Eph.  4, 
14.  15). 

5.  It  belongs  to  the  peculiarities  of  the  Pauline  doctrinal 
system  that  he  describes  the  manifestation  of  the   new   life 
trichotomically,  as  a  life  in  faith,  hope,  and  love ;  and  holds  up 
this  last  as  the  greatest  of  the  three  (1  Cor.  13,  13 ;  compare 
1  Thess.  1,  3  ;  5,  8).     Faith,  originally  the  gift  of  God  as  well  as 
the  act  of  man,  becomes  now  a  life  and  state  in  which  the  new 
man  continually  moves  (2  Cor.  4,  18 ;  5,  7),  yea,   a  principle 
which,  in  its  most  universal  form,  gives  its  true  value  to  every  ac- 
tion (Rom.  14,  23).     In  its  highest  development  it  knows  itself, 


The  Way  of  Salvation.  195 

even  here  on  earth,  sure  of  the  love  of  God  in  Christ  for  time  and 
for  eternity,  and  thus  is  naturally  one  with  that  hope  which  is 
the  peculiar  privilege  of  the  Christian  (Gal.  5,  5 ;  Eph.  2,  12). 
As  faith  has  reference  to  that  which  is  invisible,  so  does  hope 
especially  have  regard  to  those  things  which  are  yet  future, 
things  which  it  sees  not,  but  patiently  expects  (Rom.  8,  24.  25). 
Its  foundation  is  the  promise,  its  crown  the  fulfillment,  its  goal 
perfect  redemption  at  the  approaching  coming  of  the  Lord  (Rom. 
8,  19-23).  Since  this  hope  is  well-founded  and  sure  (Rom.  5,  5  ; 
2  Cor.  5,  5),  the  Christian  may  rejoice  in  the  midst  of  the  great- 
est tribulation  (Rom.  12,  12).  What  an  eminently  important 
place  hope  occupies  in  the  doctrine  of  Paul,  is  evident  from 
such  passages  as,  e.  g.,  Colos.  1,  27 ;  Tit.  1,  2 ;  2  Tim.  2,  10.  Yet, 
above  hope  and  faith  rises,  in  his  estimation,  love,  the  crown,  the 
first  of  all  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  (Gal.  5,  22),  the  natural  con- 
sequence of  faith  (Gal.  5,  6),  which,  without  it,  is  destitute  of 
all  value  (1  Cor.  13,  2).  Universal  love,  also,  and  love  of  one's 
enemies,  is  emphatically  commended  (Rom.  12,  17-21 ;  13,  8- 
10) ;  but,  above  all,  the  mutual  love  of  believers  is  the  object 
of  his  highest  praise  (1  Cor.  13,  13),  since  it  is  to  be  valued 
more  highly  than  all  gifts,  yea,  is  the  brief  summing  up,  in  a 
word,  of  all  perfection  (Colos.  3,  14). 

6.  In  the  new  life,  which  in  this  manner  reveals  itself  in  a 
threefold  form,  there  is  by  no  means  wanting  a  higher  unity. 
It  bears  throughout  the  character  of  a  thank-offering  (Rom.  12, 
1),  whose  final  aim  is  the  glorifying  of  God  (1  Cor.  10,  31 ;  Colos. 
3,  17),  and  whose  daily  effort  is  increasing  progress  towards 
perfection  (Phil.  3,  12-14).  It  is,  on  the  one  hand,  a  life  of 
liberty ;  on  the  other,  of  voluntary  service  (Rom.  8,  21 ;  Gal.  5, 
13) — a  life  which  is  no  longer  under  the  law,  but  precisely 
through  which  the  ideal  of  the  law  is  most  beautifully  realized 
(Rom.  3,  31 ;  8,  2-4),  a  life  of  constant  conflict  undoubtedly 
(Gal.  5,  17),  but  of  a  conflict  with  weapons  to  which  at  last  the 
victory  is  assured  (Eph.  6,  10-18)— a  life,  it  is  true,  still  in  the 
flesh,  but  one  which  is  more  and  more  penetrated  by  the  Spirit ; 
not  one  of  perfect  holiness,  but  of  the  ever-continued  work  of 
sanctification ;  a  school  of  exercise,  and  an  arena,  which  Paul 
loves  to  represent  under  the  image  of  the  Grecian  contests 
(1  Cor.  9,  24-27 ;  2  Tim.  4,  6-8).  The  imperfection  of  this 


196  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

condition,  however,  detracts  in  no  respects  from  its  worth.  In 
Christ  believers  are  here  already  in  principle  perfect  (Colos.  2, 10), 
and  are  in  fact  known  and  loved  of  God  (1  Cor.  8,  3) ;  yet  this 
takes  place  not  as  though  their  sanctification,  present  or  in  pros- 
pect, were  the  ground,  far  less  the  meritorious  cause,  of  their 
acceptance.  The  ground  of  their  acceptance  lies  not  within  but 
outside  of  them,  and  grace  remains  the  fountain  of  all.  That 
God,  however,  notwithstanding  their  imperfection,  and  his  in- 
violable holiness,  can  look  upon  them  and  treat  them  in  Christ 
as  righteous,  is  to  be  explained  only  by  the  fact  that  the  justi- 
fying faith,  which  unites  them  to  Christ,  is,  at  the  same  time, 
the  living  principle  of  renewal  and  sanctification,  which  sooner 
or  later  must  come  to  full  development.  Paul  teaches  justifi- 
cation just  as  little  on  the  ground  of,  as  apart  from,  personal 
sanctification. 

7.  Even  in  the  present  life  this  living  faith  becomes  the  source 
of  a  blessedness  which  is  represented  by  Paul  under  manifold 
forms.  The  justified  sinner  has  peace  with  God,  rejoices  in 
tribulation,  and  cherishes  an  unfailing  hope  for  eternity ;  so 
that  he  is  rendered  perfectly  secure  in  regard  to  the  past,  the 
present,  and  the  future  (Bom.  5,  1-5).  Justification  (<5tx«/wcrt?) 
in  the  sense  of  Paul  involves  not  merely,  negatively,  the  notion 
of  the  cancelling  of  guilt,  and  of  acquittal  from  punishment ; 
but  also,  positively,  the  notion  of  perfect  restoration  to  God's 
favor  and  friendship  is  intimately  bound  up  with  this  idea 
(Rom.  4,  3-5).  [The  justification  of  sinners  embraces,  conse- 
quently, the  twofold  idea  of  pardon  and  acceptance,  Eph.  1, 
5-7  ;  Acts  26,  18.]  On  this  account  the  idea  of  justification  is 
closely  connected  with  another,  that  of  adoption  as  God's  chil- 
dren (viodealu),  which  is  here  constantly  represented  as  the  pecul- 
iar privilege  of  believers.  As  the  conception  of  a  judicial  act 
(in  declaring  the  sinner  righteous)  underlies  the  idea  of  justifi- 
cation, so  also  it  constitutes  the  basis  in  the  adoption  of  him 
who  was  originally  a  servant,  to  the  rank  and  rights  of  a  child, 
by  which  an  end  is  for  ever  put  to  all  slavish  service  and  fear. 
Yet  here,  also,  the  juridical  idea  has  at  the  same  time  its  ethical 
side.  As  the  justified  man  necessarily  lives  in  righteousness, 
so  the  adopted  children  are  at  the  same  time  followers  of  God, 
who,  above  all  things,  in  love  manifest  the  Father's  image  in 


The  Church.  197 

themselves,  resemble  Him  in  spirit  (Eph.  5,  1.  2)  and  thereby 
become  inwardly  fitted  to  become  his  heirs  (Rom  8,  17).  This 
Divine  adoption,  however,  is  a  blessing  which  is  perfectly  re- 
alized only  in  the  future,  when  redemption  (^noUr^uig)  shall  be 
enjoyed  in  its  whole  fulness. 

Comp.  ENGELS,  G-eloofstroem,  1835  ;  VERWEY,  "  What  God 
works  in  us  through  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  Paul"  W.  in  L. 
1839  ;  BERLAGE,  Disq.  de  form.  Paul.  Ulan?  '/.  x$.  signification  , 
Lugd.  Bat  1856  ;  WERNTNK,  u  Exeg.  Stud,  on  ntaiig  and  Hw- 
Tetew  in  the  New  Testament"  Rott.  1858  ;  COOPS,  "  Explanation 
of  the  words,  Justify  and  Justification,"  Rott.  1861. 

Questions  for  consideration.  —  What  is  the  sense  of  2  Cor.  5,  7  ? 
—  Explanation  of  the  different  formulas  nivng  'Iqaov  Xg.,  ^'/^aw 
Xg.,  eig  Xy.,  &c.  —  The  nature  of  faith  as  it  is  seen  in  the  life  of 
Paul  himself,  Gal.  2,  19-21.—  Is  the  Holy  Spirit,  according  to 
Paul,  the  author,  or  the  fruit  of  faith  ?  —  Life  after  the  spirit,  in 
contradistinction  from  life  after  the  flesh.  —  The  Christian  armor, 
Eph.  6,  10-18.  —  What  peculiarity  has  the  doctrine  of  Paul  in 
regard  to  vlodeata  ?  —  The  full  compass  of  the  idea  of  the  anokv- 


*  §41. 

The  Church. 

All,  who  thus  believe,  form  together  a  spiritual  body,  the 
members  of  which  are  by  baptism  most  closely  united  to  the 
Lord  and  to  each  other  ;  and,  through  the  Lord's  Supper,  con- 
tinually strengthen  their  fellowship  with  Him  and  with  each 
other.  With  all  its  diversity,  this  communion  of  believers  is 
one;  notwithstanding  all  imperfection,  holy;  in  spite  of  all 
temporary  barriers,  destined  to  receive  all  nations  into  its  bosom  ; 
and  amidst  all  conflict,  assured  at  last  of  the  victory  in  Him 
whose  glorious  revelation  it  expects  with  ardent  longing. 

1.  Until  now  we  have,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Apostle, 
contemplated  the  individual  man  in  fellowship  with  Christ  In 
order,  however,  to  estimate  at  its  true  value  salvation  in  Him, 


198  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

we  must  direct  our  attention  to  the  union  of  all  those  who  enjoy 
the  same;  in  other  words,  must  become  more  intimately 
acquainted  with  the  Pauline  Ecclesiology.  It  is  especially  the 
Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  and  that  to  the  Ephesians  which 
here  render  us  important  service.  But  others,  also,  especially 
the  pastoral  Epistles,  contain  important  hints. 

2.  The  church  or  congregation  of  the  Lord  (the  two  are  iden- 
tical in  the  language  of  Paul)  is  by  no  means  the  same  as  the 
kingdom  of  (rod  and  of  Christ.     This  latter  is  a  perfectly  spir- 
itual society,  whose  ideal  will  be  fully  realized  only  in  the 
future  (1  Cor.   6,   10 ;  15,   50 ;  Eph.   5,   5) ;  the  former  is  the 
union  of  those  who  here  on  earth  are  already,  through  faith  and 
love,  members  of  that  kingdom.     When  Paul  speaks  of  the 
church  (£xx^cr/«),  he  means  either  the  Christian  assembly  which 
is  gathered  at  a  particular  place  (1  Cor.  14,  19.  35 ;  comp.  also 
the  txxhqaia  XUT  oixo//),  or  the  union  of  confessors  of  the  Lord  in 
a  town  or  province,  (1  Thess.  1,  1),  or  the  totality  of  all  believ- 
ers (Eph.  1,  22).     With  his  presentation  of  this  last  we  have 
especially  to  do. 

3.  The  high  position  assigned  to  the  church  by  Paul,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  names  by  which  he  designates  it,   and  from  the 
figures  under  which  he  describes  it.     It  is  for  him  the  church  of 
G-od  (Acts  20,   28),   of  Christ  (Eph.  5,  25-27),   the  dwelling- 
place  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (1  Cor.  3,  16).     In  the  first  case  it  is 
compared  by  preference  to  a  cultivated  field  (1  Cor.  3,  9),  in 
the  second  to  a  body  (Eph.  1,  23),  in  the  third  to  a  temple  ; 
although  the  different  images  here  and  there  run  into  each  other 
(Eph.  2,  20 ;  4,  16).     This  last  especially  is  his  favorite  com- 
parison (1  Cor.  3,  9-17).     God  is  the  master  builder,  Christ  the 
foundation  ;  doctrines  of  very  different  degrees  of  value  are  the 
different  materials  of  which  it  is  built  up,  and  the  household  of 
Grod  are  believers,  as  those  who  have  been  received  into  God's 
family  (Eph.  2,  19-22).     If  on  one  occasion  the  Apostles  and 
prophets  of  the  New  Testament  are  also  called  the  foundation 
of  the  building,  (Eph.  2,  20),  this  is  only  because  they  proclaim 
Christ,  who  is  the  living  center.     In  Him  the  building  of  God 
stands  immovably  firm,  even  though  within  its  walls  are  in- 
cluded objects  of  the  most  diverse  value  (2  Tim.  2,  19.  20). 
With  no  less  fitness  is  set  forth  the  diversity — along  with  the 


The  Church.  199 

higher  unity — in  the  church,  under  the  figure  of  a  body.  The 
former  is  undeniable,  but  necessary ;  the  latter  is  founded  in 
the  relation  of  all  to  the  same  Christ.  As  He  may  be  called, 
in  relation  to  all  mankind,  the  second  Adam ;  so  for  the  whole 
Church  is  He  the  living,  governing,  and  protecting  Head. 

4.  Into  this  church  the  entrance  is  through  baptism,*  the  ini- 
tiatory rite  of  the  New  Testament,  as  circumcision  was  of  the 
Old,  (Colos.  2,  11.  12).     As  Israel,  in  passing  through  the  Bed 
Sea,  was  brought  into  the  closest  relationship  to  Moses,  so  are 
believers  by  baptism  brought  into  the  closest  relationship  to 
Christ,  especially  as  the  dead  and  risen  one.     They  are  called  to 
confess  his  name,  and  to.  be  together  one  spiritual  body.     No- 
where, indeed,  does  the  Apostle  ascribe  to  baptism  in  itself  a 
magical  power  [i.  e.,  without  any  just  proportion  between  cause 
and  effect],  but  to  such  an  extent  a  mystical  power,  that  it  is  truly 
a  bath  of  regeneration  and  renewing  (Tit.  3,  5),f  where — as  was 
the  case,  as  a  rule,  with  those  baptized  in  the  Apostolic  age — it 
is  believingly  desired  and  received.     Baptism  is  just  as  little  a 
mere  symbol,  as  it  is  an  immediate  source  of  blessing ;  it  is,  how- 
ever, the  mediate  cause  of  spiritual  purification,  only  because  it 
is  received  in  connection  with  faith.J     Infant  baptism§  is,  in 
Paul's  Epistles,  just  as  little  forbidden  as  enjoined ;  he,  however, 
lays  evident  stress  upon  the  fact  that  there  is  but  one  baptism, 
as  there  is  but  one  saving  faith  (Eph.  4,  5). 

5.  As  upon  baptism,  so  also  upon  the  Lord's  Supper,  more 
light  is  shed  by  Paul,  especially  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, 11  and  12,  than  by  any  other  Apostle.     His  account  of 

*  [Debemus  in  baptismo  agnoscere  spirituals  lavacrum ;  debemus  illic  testimo- 
nium  remissionis  peccatorum  et  renovationis  nostrae  pignus  amplecti ;  sic  tamen 
relinquere  et  Christo  et  Spiritui  sancto  suum  honorem,  ut  nulla  pars  salutis  ad  sig- 
nura  transferatur. — Calvin,  in  1  Pet.  3,  21. — M.  J.  E.] 

f  [The  washing  of  baptism  introduces  typically  to  the  new  state  of  the  believer 
(compare  Matt.  19,  28),  while  the  "renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  is  the  efficient 
cause  of  the  new  life. — M.  J.  E.] 

\  [Spiritus  Dei  est  qui  nos  regenerat,  facitque  novas  creaturas ;  sed  quia  invisi- 
bilis  et  occulta  est  ejus  gratia,  visibile  in  baptismo  ejus  symbolum  conspicitur. — 
Calvin,  in  Tit.  3,  5.— M.  J.  E.] 

§  [Compare,  however,  the  words  of  Calvin : — Quodsi  communi  generis  human! 
sorte  eximuntur  fidelium  liberi  ut  Domino  segregentur,  cur  eos  a  signo  arceamus  ? 
si  Dominus  in  Ecclesiam  suam  eos  verbo  admittit,  cur  signum  illis  negabimus? — 
Calvin,  in  1  Cor.  7,  14.— M.  J.  E.] 


200  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

the  institution  of  the  Supper  (1  Cor.  11,  23-26),  is  the  oldest 
which  has  come  down  to  us,  and  is  the  more  important  since  he 
received  the  knowledge  thereof  directly — though  mediately — 
from  the  Lord  (d/ro  TOO  Kvyiov).  The  Lord's  Supper  is  to  him 
evidently  a  breaking  of  bread  for  the  commemoration  of  the 
Lord's  atoning  death,  a  commemoration  ordained  by  Himself, 
and  to  be  observed,  after  earnest  self-examination,  and  in  a  wor- 
thy manner,  by  His  church  unto  the  end  of  the  ages  (1  Cor. 
11,  26-29).  But  no  less  is  it  to  him,  through  the  symbols  of 
the  Lord's  body  and  blood,  a  feast  of  the  most  intimate  com- 
munion with  the  Lord  and  all  His  people,  (1  Cor.  10,  16,  17). 
It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  Baptism  and  the  Supper  are  at  least 
once  mentioned  by  him  in  one  breath,  and  placed  upon  a  level 
(1  Cor.  12, 13 ;  comp.  10,  2-4) ;  though  naturally  the  combining 
of  the  two  under  a  single  sacramental  idea  is  of  later  origin. 

6.  The  church,  which  is  thus  purified  [symbolically]  by  Bap- 
tism, and  by  the  Supper  more  closely  united  to  its  head,  remains 
one  (Eph.  4,  1-6),  notwithstanding  all  diversity  of  gifts,  pow- 
ers, and  operations,  which  manifest  themselves  in  the  midst  of 
it  (1  Cor.  12,  4-6).      While  Paul,  in  regard  to  the  universal 
priesthood  of  believers  (1  Pet.  2,  9)  throws  out  only  hints,  (as, 
for  instance,  in  Rom.  12, 1),  he  is  much  more  explicit  than  Peter, 
where  he  is  called  to  give  directions  as  to  the  inner  organism  of 
church  life   (Rom.  12,  4-6;  Eph.  4,  11 ;  the  Pastoral  Epistles). 
The  Divine  origin  of  the  different  officers  (1  Cor.  12,  28 ;  Eph. 
4,  11 ;  Acts  20,  28)  is  to  him  as  fully  established  as  the  calling 
of  each  member  of  the  church  to  employ  the  gifts  received  for 
its  edification  (1  Cor.  14,  26).     To  this  latter  end  must  all  be 
made   subservient ;    even   the  relative   value   of  the   diiferent 
Charismata  is  very  distinctly  made  to  depend  thereupon  (1  Cor. 
14,  39).     A  sharp  line  of  distinction  between  the  ordinary  and 
extraordinary  gifts   of  the   Spirit   is   nowhere   drawn  by  the 
Apostle ;  but  he  calls  upon  all  to  strive,  in  the  way  of  love,  after 
the  possession  of  the  highest  and  best  (1  Cor.  13).     The  factious 
man  in  the  church,  on  the  other  hand,  falls  under  the  Apostle's 
severe  rebuke  (Tit  3,  10.  11),  less  even  on  account  of  his  hete- 
rodoxy than  on  account  of  his  egoistic  party  machinations. 

7.  While  the  church  is  thus  one,  it  is,  at  the  same  time,  called 
to  holiness,  and  it  corresponds  really  to  the  ideal,  so  far  as 


The  Church.  201 

it  deserves  the  name  of  a  living  church.  On  this  account  the 
highest  distinctive  titles  of  ancient  Israel  are  bestowed  upon  it 
as  a  whole, — holy,  elect,  beloved,  etc.  There  is  nowhere  made 
in  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  Paul,  a  prevailing  distinction 
between  the  outward  and  the  true  church,  although  he  by  no 
means  overlooks  the  distinction  between  nominal  Christianity 
and  living  faith  (Rom.  9,  5 ;  1  Cor.  4,  20 ;  2  Tim.  2,  19.  20). 
As  a  rule,  he  seeks  and  finds  the  power  of  darkness,  not  within 
the  church,  but  outside  of  it  (Colos.  1,  13) ;  and  precisely  on 
this  account  rebukes,  with  the  greatest  severity,  by  word  and 
deed,  every  manifestation  of  impurity  within  it  (1  Cor.  5, 1,  sqq.), 
while  he  regards  it  as  beneath  the  dignity  of  believers  to  bring 
their  mutual  differences  before  the  forum  of  an  unholy  world 
(1  Cor.  6,  1-3).  All  impurity  belongs,  as  a  rule,  to  that  past 
with  which  they  have  no  more  to  do  (1  Cor.  6,  10-11) ;  in  prin- 
ciple the  church  is  already  perfect,  by  virtue  of  its  inner  one- 
ness with  Christ  (Colos.  2,  10),  and  in  reality  is  destined  ever- 
more to  become  so  (Eph.  5,  25-27). 

8.  United  and  holy,  the  church  is,  also,  as  regarded  and 
viewed  by  Paul,  in  the  highest  sense  catholic.  The  middle  wall 
of  partition  is  fallen  away ;  out  of  the  spiritual  blending  of  the 
different  nations,  races,  and  ranks,  arises  now  the  true  people  of 
Christ  (Eph.  2,  14-16 ;  Colos.  3,  11 ;  Tit.  2,  14).  Paul  will  not, 
however,  in  a  revolutionary  spirit,  assail  the  institutions  of  social 
life,  much  less  with  one  blow  overthrow  the  whole  order  of  the 
social  community  (1  Cor.  7,  20).  His  own  treatment  of  Onesi- 
mus,  no  less  than  his  directions  for  servants,  wives,  and  children, 
proves  the  very  contrary  (Eph.  5,  and  6 ;  Colos.  3 ;  1  Tim.  6). 
From  woman  her  subordinate  place  is  not  taken  away  (1  Cor. 
11,  7),  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  duty  of  subjection  is  enforced 
by  a  humbling  reference  to  the  history  of  the  fall  (1  Tim.  2,  14) ; 
yet,  nevertheless,  her  spiritual  emancipation  also  is  proclaimed 
in  the  Gospel  of  Paul  (Gal.  3,  28),  for  the  ground-tone  of  this 
is  liberty — a  Gospel  liberty  (Gal.  4,  9)  which  binds  itself  by  no 
narrow  forms,  and  bows  only  before  the  highest  law  of  love 
(1  Cor.  8-10;  Roin.  14).  On  this  account  it  is  adapted  to  the 
case  of  all,  as  it  is  also  destined  to  be  brought  to  all  (Rom.  10, 
14-17,)  and  was  also,  even  in  the  beginning,  brought  to  them 
without  restriction  of  person  (Col.  1,  23). 

13 


202  The  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

9.  The  final  triumph  of  such  a  kingdom  of  God  cannot  rea- 
sonably be  doubted     The  Church  itself  serves  as  a  pillar  and 
ground  of  Christian  truth,  because  it  confesses  and  preserves  it 
(1  Tim.  3,  15).     In  the  midst  of  all  conflict,  there  is,  therefore, 
assured  to  it  a  continual  growth,  a  glorious  completion  of  the 
edifice,  but  upon  the  foundation  which  was  laid  once  for  all 
(Eph.  2,  22  ;  4,  15.  16).     Absolute  completeness  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  Paul  does  not  indeed  seem 
to  promise  ;  yea,  there  is  no  ground  for  maintaining  that  he 
looked  for  the  realization  of  the  ideal  in  1  Cor.  13,  9-12  in  the 
world.     But  yet  he  sees  the  fullness  (the  pre-determined  totality 
of  the  nations)  of  the  Gentile  world  soon  about  to  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  in  consequence  thereof  all  Israel,  as  a 
nation,  converted  and  saved   (Rom.   11,   25.  26).      Especially 
from  this  last  event  does  the  Apostle  expect,  in  the  spiritual 
sense  of  the  word,  a  new  life   from  the  dead  (Rom.  11,  15). 
"  The  conversion  of  the  whole  human  race  in  the  world  will  ac- 
company the  conversion  of  Israel  "  (BENGEL.) 

10.  The  prospect  of  so  great  events  can,  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  awaken  only  lofty  expectations.     Hope  occupies  in 
the  Pauline  theology,  a  place  not  much  inferior  to  that  which 
it  occupies  in  the  Petrine.     The  cherishing  of  the  desire  for  the 
appearing  of  Christ,  is  a  prevailing  characteristic  of  the  Chris- 
tian life  (2  Tim.  4,  8).     Consciously  or  unconsciously,  all  is 
looking  for  redemption  (Rom.    8,  19-23  ;  2  Cor.  5,  2-4),  and 
this  redemption  will  not  always,  yea,  will  not  even  much  longer, 
have  to  be  waited  for  (Rom.  13,  11). 

Comp.  PAKEATJ,  "  The  Doctrine  of  Paul  concerning  the  Nature 
of  Christ's  Church,"  W.  in  L.  1842  ;  DOEDES,  "  The  Doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper"  Utr.,  1847,  bl.  47  ff  ;  -HALLEY,  On  the  Sacra- 
ments, London,  1844,  51.  LECHLER,  I  c.,  S.  120  ff  ;  also  the 
articles  on  Baptism  and>the  Lord's  Supper  in  HERZOG. 


Questions  for  consideration.  —  The  txxlrjalm  x«r'  ol*6v  in  the  Pau- 
line Epistles.  —  Whence  the  fuller  development  of  the  idea  of 
the  Church  in  the  Pauline  than  in  the  Petrine  theology?  — 
Sense,  truth,  and  beauty  of  the  illustration  in  1  Cor.  3,  9-17, 
comp.  Eph.  2,  19-22  ;  2  Tim.  2,  19.—  The  unity  of  the  Church, 
1  Cor.  12,  26.  —  The  teaching  of  Eph.  4,  5,  as  compared  with  1 


The  Future.  203 

Cor.  12,  13. — Peculiar  character  and  diverse  value  of  the  va- 
rious charismata. — Union  of  liberty  and  order  in  the  Pauline 
ideal  of  the  Church. — Pauline  teaching  with  regard  to  Baptism 
and  the  Supper,  compared  with  that  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels. 
— The  earnest  of  the  future  completion  of  the  kingdom  of 
God. 

§42. 

The  Future. 

The  plan  of  salvation  is  to  be  fully  realized  at  the  return  of  the 
Lord,  an  event  which  Paul,  with  the  whole  Apostolic  Church, 
looked  for  as  near  at  hand,  and  which — though  by  no  means 
without  previous  warning — will  at  last  occur  unexpectedly. 
The  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  final  judgment,  and  the  anni- 
hilation of  every  power  which  sets  itself  against  Christ,  are 
associated  with  this  great  event ;  in  consequence  of  which  the 
perfected  kingdom  of  Christ  finally  passes  over  into  the  ever- 
lasting kingdom  of  God. 

1.  Like  Peter  (§  27)  and  all  his  fellow  Apostles,  Paul  cher- 
ishes  the   living   hope   of  the    speedy  advent   of  the   Lord. 
Nowhere  does  he  reckon  himself  among  those  who  shall  be 
raised  at  the  last  day ;  repeatedly,  on  the  contrary,  he  expresses 
himself  as  cherishing  the  expectation  of  being  himself  among 
the  number  of  those  who  shall  remain  alive  at  the  coming  of 
the  Lord  (1  Thess.  4,  15  ;  1  Cor.  15,  51.  52).     In  his  later  epis- 
tles, also,  the  idea  is  expressed,  more  obscurely  however,  that 
something  of  the  kind  is  possible  (2  Cor.  5,  4;  Phil.  3,  11); 
although  the  more  his  earthly  activity  hastens  to  its  close,  the 
more  does  he  become  familiar  with  the  thought  of  dying  before 
that  hour  (Phil.  1,  21-23 ;  2  Tim.  4,  6-8). 

2.  However  near  the  Lord's  return  may  be,  its  precise  period 
can  not  be  exactly  determined.     Unexpectedly  (1  Thess.  5,  2), 
but  not  without  warning,  it  comes :  the  Man  of  Sin  precedes 
the  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man.     Remarkably  enough,  the  most 
full  teaching  concerning  the  Antichrist  is  found  in  one  of  the 
oldest  of  all  the  epistles  of  our  Apostle  (2  Thess.  2,  1-12) ; 


204  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

another  proof  how  deeply  this  idea  was  rooted  not  only  in  the 
teaching  of  the  Lord  (Matt.  24,  23-24);  but  also  in  the  theology 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  whole  cycle  of  thought  of  the 
Apostolic  age  which  was  therewith  so  closely  connected.  The 
obscurity  of  the  Apostle's  teaching  upon  this  point  arises  es- 
pecially from  the  fact  that  he  is  manifestly  alluding  to  circum- 
stances and  phenomena  in  social  and  civil  life,  which  were  much 
better  known  to  his  contemporaries  than  to  later  readers.  But 
ever  do  we  find  expressed  in  this  mysterious  form  the  thought 
no  less  profound  than  rational,  that  the  highest  concentration  of 
the  kingdom  of  darkness,  and  that  an  individual  one,  will  pre- 
cede the  manifestation  of  the  kingdom  of  light,  and  that  the  last 
mighty  effort  of  the  former  immediately  borders  on  its  deepest 
humiliation. 

3.  This  humiliation  takes  place  at  the  last  coming,  which  the 
Apostle  evidently  conceives  of  as  a  visible  Christophany,  which 
to  some  extent  resembles  the  glorious  Theophany  at  the  giving 
of  the  law  on  Horeb.     Christ  comes,  in  a  glorified  form  (Phil. 

3,  20.  21)  from  heaven,  whither  He  has  ascended  (1  Thess.  1,10; 

4,  16 ;  2  Thess.  1,  7).     That  He  comes,  in  order  henceforth  to 
dwell  and  reign  upon  earth,   Paul  does  not  say.     He  expects 
rather  that  the  believers  who  remain  alive  until  the  advent 
will  be  caught  up  into  the  air  to  meet  the  coming  King  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  in  order  thus  to  be  ever  with  Him.     Whether 
on  earth  or  in  heaven  remains  undecided ;  perhaps  we  should 
best  express  the  mind  of  the  Apostle  if  we  should  venture  on 
the  supposition  that,  with  the  eye  directed  to  this  future,  the 
boundary-line  between  the  two  will  be  found  to  vanish.     But 
from  1  Cor.  6,  2.  3,  it  seems  to  follow  that  he  conceived  of  be- 
lievers as  taking  an  active  part  in  the  final  judgment,  the  exe- 
cution of  which  is  now  to  be  accomplished. 

4.  At  this  coming,  proclaimed  with  majesty  (1  Thess.  4,  16 ; 
comp.  1  Cor.  15,  52),  all  who  have  fallen  asleep  in  Christ  shall 
be  at  once  raised,  and  those  yet  living  so  changed  that,  without 
dying,  all  that  is  mortal  in  them  shall  be,  so  to  speak,  swallowed 
up  of  life  (2  Cor.  5,  4).     This  is  the  first  resurrection   (1  Cor. 
15,  23 ;  1  Thess.  4,  16),  of  which  mention  is  made  by  Jesus,  as 
also  by  the  Apostle  John  (Luke  14,  14 ;  Kev.  20,  5).     It  takes 
place  at  the  end  of  the  age,  and  is  therefore  preceded  by  a 


The  Future.  205 

separate  state  immediately  after  death.  Since  the  Apostle  so 
soon  expects  the  Lord's  coming,  it  is  easy  to  see  why  he  does 
not  more  fully  describe  this  condition ;  he  looks  beyond  it  to 
the  end.  Only  thus  much  can  be  said  with  certainty,  that  he 
conceives  of  this  state  by  no  means  as  a  state  of  lifeless  uncon- 
sciousness, but  as  a  state  of  liberation,  of  repose,  and  of  desira- 
ble happiness  (Phil.  1,  21-23),  and  cherishes  the  assurance  that 
neither  death  nor  life  can  separate  him  from  God  in  Christ 
(1  Thes.  5,  10 ;  Rom.  8,  38.  39 ;  14,  7-9). 

With  this  separated  spirit  the  risen  body  is  united  at  the 
coming  of  Christ.  By  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  Apostle 
no  more  understands,  merely  the  immortality  of  the  spirit,  than 
he  does  a  material  restoration  of  the  flesh :  to  the  opposite  of  this 
latter  view  he  even  gives  emphatic  expression  (1  Cor.  6,  13  ;  15, 
50).  He  conceives  of  the  restoration  of  the  whole  man,  in  con- 
sequence of  which  the  liberated  spirit  receives  a  heavenly 
body  (2  Cor.  5,  1),  which,  essentially  identical  with  the  earthly, 
is  yet  furnished  with  quite  different  properties  (1  Cor.  15,  42- 
44).  The  possibility  of  this  resurrection,  founded  on  God's 
omnipotence,  Paul  finds  symbolized  in  the  kingdom  of  nature 
(1  Cor.  15,  36-41).  Its  certainty  is  established  in  his  view,  ob- 
jectively by  the  resurrection  of  Christ  (1  Thess.  4,  14  ;  1  Cor.  6, 
14),  and  subjectively  by  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
(Rom.  8,  10 ;  2  Cor.  5,  5).  Its  glory  appears  when  we  contem- 
plate the  infinite  difference  between  the  present  earthly  and  the 
future  heavenly  condition  (1  Cor.  15,  45-49  ;  comp.  Phil  3,  21). 

5.  The  end  of  the  present  dispensation  is,  at  the  same  time, 
the  manifestation  and  culmination  of  the  dominion  of  Christ  on 
earth  (1  Cor.  15,  24.  25).     All  foes  are  annihilated,   Antichrist 
included  (2  Thes.  2,  8) ;  last  of  all  death  (1  Cor.  15,  26),  which 
hitherto  had  still  preserved  considerable  power.     Here  we  must, 
as  it  would  seem,  place  the  general  resurrection  both  of  the 
just  and  the  unjust,  which  Paul  also  on  one  occasion  (Acts  24, 
15)  refers  to.     But  certainly  the  great  final  judgment  now  takes 
place,  which  Paul  everywhere  and  always  inseparably  connects 
with  the  coining  of  the  Lord. 

6.  The  final  judgment  takes  place  on  a  prophetic  day  of 
righteous  retribution  upon  the  obstinate  rejectors  of  the  Lord 
(2  Thess.  1,  7-10 ;  Rom.  2,  5).     The  last  judgment,   absolutely 


206  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

universal  (2  Cor.  5,  10),  takes  cognizance  of  good  and  evil 
deeds,  and  is  pronounced  according  to  the  most  equitable 
standard  (Rom.  2,  6-10).  God  judges  the  world  by  Christ 
(Acts  17,  31 ;  2  Tim.  4,  1),  at  whose  coming  every  secret  thing 
shall  be  brought  to  light  (1  Cor.  4,  5).  Nowhere  does  Paul 
teach  a  final  pronouncing  of  our  destiny  immediately  after 
death :  the  day  of  the  Lord's  coming  is  the  day  of  full  retribu- 
tion (Eom.  2,  16),  and  not  before  this  day  will  the  future  glory 
of  believers  be  manifest  in  its  full  splendor  (Rom.  8,  23  ;  Colos. 
3,  3.  4). 

7.  Highly  blessed  is  the  lot  which  on  that  day  awaits  the 
redeemed  of  Christ.     It  is,  on  the  one  hand,   a  perfect  deliver- 
ance from  all  that  oppresses,   especially  from  the  body  of  death 
(Rom.  8,  2.  23) ;  on  the  other  hand,  a  knowing  (1  Cor.  13,  12), 
beholding  (2  Cor.  5,  7),  enjoying   (1  Thes.  4,  17)  Christ  and  a 
triumphant  reigning  with  Him   (2  Tim.  2,  12) — of  which  we 
can  here  form  but  a  very  imperfect  conception  (Rom.  8,  18 ;  2 
Cor.  4,  17).     No  other  Apostle  describes  the  blessedness  of  the 
future  so  often  as  a  personal  participation  in  the  triumph  and 
dominion  of  Christ  (2  Cor.  4,  10 ;  Rom.  5,  17) — a  phenomenon 
which  admits  of  a  perfect  explanation  psychologically,  but  at 
the  same  time  an  expectation  which  is  based  (Matt.  19,  28)  on 
nothing  less  than  the  word  of  the  Lord  himself.     Without 
doubt,  according  to  the  conception  of  Paul,  this  future  blessed- 
ness and  glory  has  its  variously  modified  degrees  (1  Cor.  15, 
40-44 ;  2  Cor.  9,  6) ;  but  all  the  children  of  God  will  be,  in 
their  measure,  His  heirs,  and  joint-heirs  with  Christ  (Rom.  8, 
16,  17). 

8.  On  the  future  misery  of  the  unconverted  sinner  he  speaks 
less  in  detail,  but  expresses  himself  with  equal  definiteness.     It 
concentrates  itself  in  his  view,  in  banishment  from  the  presence 
(face)  of  the  Lord  and  in  the  experience  of  His  terrible  dis- 
pleasure (2  Thess.  1,  8-9 ;  Rom.  2,  9-12),  without  any  pros- 
pect of  diminution  or  removal  of  the  punishment.     The  doc- 
trine of  the   ultimate  salvation  of  all   finds  only  a  seeming 
countenance  in  Paul.     Guided    by   the  sound  of  the  words, 
merely,  we  might  perhaps  find  apparent  support  for  this  doctrine 
in  certain  isolated  expressions  of  the  Apostle ;  but  even  in  such 
cases,  every  one  who  decides  impartially  will  admit,  that  obscure 


The  Future.  207 

or  vague  hints  must  be  interpreted  by  the  light  of  distinct  asser- 
tions, and  not  the  converse.  The  second  Adam  gives  life,  in- 
deed, to  all,  but  under  a  moral  condition  which  is  not  complied 
with  by  all  (1  Cor.  15,  22) ;  the  universal  homage  rendered 
finally  to  Christ  (Phil.  2,  10)  may  be  in  part  a  forced  homage  ; 
and  if  God  is  one  day  to  be  all  in  all  (1  Cor.  15,  28)  the  connec- 
tion of  the  words  forbid  us  to  refer  this  to  any  but  those  who 
have  already  become  subjects  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Mercy, 
shown  toward  the  Gentile  and  Jewish  (Rom.  11,  32)  world  in 
their  totality,  can  be  exercised  even  when  single  individuals 
perish ;  and  the  reconciliation  of  heaven  and  earth  (Eph.  1, 
10 ;  Colos.  1,  20)  is  accomplished,  even  though  obstinate  oppo- 
sers  (2  Thess.  2)  are  not  converted  and  saved.  Enough,  that, 
according  to  the  conception  of  the  Apostle,  no  single  hostile 
power  will  be  able  permanently  to  make  a  stand  against  the 
kingdom  of  God  in  its  triumph,  and  that  thus  every  discordant 
note  will  be  wholly  swallowed  up  in  the  song  of  redemption. 
"  The  problem  here  set  before  us  is,  so  to  conceive  of  the  tindteiu, 
that  God's  being  all  in  all  may  yet  be  in  the  wider  sense  pos- 
sible, and  so  to  explain  this  latter,  that  the  idea  of  fatileta  shall 
remain  unchanged  "  (KLING). 

9.  When  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  completed,  the  kingly 
office  of  the  Son  has  accomplished  its  special  purpose  (1  Cor. 
15,  27) ;  and  although  all  things  continue  to  retain  their 
separate  existence,  they  end  for  and  in  God,  in  the  undivided 
fullness  of  His  being  (1  Cor.  15,  28  ;  comp.  Rom.  11,  36).  Upon 
Paul's  conception  of  the  nature  of  God,  full  light  arises  only 
when  we  stand  at  the  end  of  his  doctrinal  development ;  and 
from  all  we  have  learnt  at  his  mouth  concerning  the  diverse  ac- 
tivity and  reciprocal  relationship  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost,  it  is  clear  that  this  conception  of  God  bears  no 
traces  of  dry  deistical,  far  less  of  a  superficial  Unitarian  charac- 
ter. The  Trinity  of  the  Divine  Being  already  hinted  at  by  the 
Apostle  Peter  (1  Pet.  1,  2),  comes  with  him  ever  anew  into 
the  foreground  (1  Cor.  12,  4-6 ;  2  Cor.  13,  14),  and  however 
little  he  is  given  to  abstract  speculations,  it  is  manifest  that  he 
not  only  ascribes  to  the  Son  of  God  a  truly  Divine  nature  and 
dignity  (§  38.  4,  5),  but  also  ascribes  (1  Cor.  2,  10;  12,  11)  to 
the  Holy  Spirit  a  self-consciouness  and  freedom  of  action  which 


208  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

necessarily  leads  to  the  idea  of  a  personal  existence.  Both  to  the 
Son  of  God  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  distinguished  from  the 
Father,  he  ascribes  an  activity  which  is  conceivable  only 
when  the  divinity  of  their  nature  is  recognized  and  acknowl- 
edged. Yet  it  is  especially  the  glory  of  God  the  Father,  which 
is  the  final  goal  of  all  that  He  accomplishes,  through  the  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit,  for  the  salvation  of  the  sinner  (1  Cor.  8,  6  ; 
Rom.  11,  33-36).  u  In  majorem  Dei  gloriam  "  is  the  highest 
watchword  of  the  Pauline  theology,  more  than  of  any  other. 

Comp.  our  "  Christology"  II,  289  sqq.  with  the  literature  there 
cited ;  BRIET,  "  Eschatol»gy"  II,  198,  sqq.  On  the  Antichrist,  2 
Thess.  2,  CHANTEPIE  DE  LA  SAUSSAYE,  " Bibk  Studies"  I,  65; 
EINCK,  "  Th.e  Doctrine  of  the  Antichrist"  Elberf.  1867  ;  HOELE- 
MANN  "  The  position  of  St.  Paul  on  the  Question  of  the  Time  of 
Christ's  Return"  in  his  Neue  Bibelstud.,  Leipzig,  1866. 

Questions  for  consideration. — Nature,  basis,  and  value  of  Paul's 
teaching  concerning  the  time  of  the  second  coming. — What  is 
to  be  understood  by  the  &v6<)  T.  du.,  2  Thess.  2,  3,  and  what  by 
TO  xare'/o/',  21,  8  ? — Have  the  ideas  of  the  Apostle  concerning 
resurrection,  judgment,  &c.,  been  always  the  same,  or  is  a 
modification  and  development  to  be  observed  in  them? — Ex- 
planation of  2  Cor.  5,  1-4,  as  compared  with  1  Cor.  15,  51-54.— 
What  difference  is  there,  according  to  the  teaching  of  Paul,  in 
the  condition  of  departed  believers  before  and  after  the  second 
coming  of  the  Lord  ? — Does  Paul  distinguish  between  a  first 
and  second  resurrection  ? — Doctrine  of  the  ApoJcatastasis  in  the 
Pauline  theology. — Connection  of  the  whole  Pauline  theology 
with  his  conception  of  the  nature  of  God. 

§43. 
The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine. 

However  full  and  original  the  Pauline  conception  of  Chris- 
tianity may  be,  it  stands  by  no  means  alone.  Its  prelude  is 
found  in  the  address  of  Stephen,  its  fundamental  tone  in  the 
writings  of  Luke,  its  echo  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  and 
in  such  a  manner  that  this  last,  on  the  one  hand,  faithfully  reflects 


The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine.  209 

the  spirit  of  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and  is  on  the 
other  hand,  an  independent  link  in  the  chain  of  the  earliest 
development  of  Christian  doctrine. 

1.  In  the  days  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  founder  of  Mosaism 
(§  4)  stood,  in  a  certain  sense,  alone  upon  his  intellectual  and 
religious  height.     Paul,  however — the  Moses  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment— has  friends  and  spiritual  kinsmen,  who,  each  in  his  own 
manner,  proclaim  the  great  principles  of  Paulinism,  although 
without  attaining  to  the  height  of  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles.    One  only  do  we  find  among  them  all  who  speaks  with 
such  force  and  dignity  that  many  have  often  thought  they  dis- 
cerned in  his  voice  that  of  Paul  himself.      Nevertheless,  the 
others  must  not  be  passed  by  without  explanation. 

2.  Like  other  great  men,  Paul  also  had  his  forerunner.     We 
find  him  in  Stephen,  with  whom  we  become  acquainted,  Acts  6 
and  7.     The  leading  thought  of  Paulinism  even  if  not  fully  ex- 
pressed, and  much  less  developed,  was  yet  distinctly  indicated 
by  him.     This  is  equally  evident  from  the  accusation  brought 
against  him  (Acts  6,  14),  and  from  single  points  in  his  defence, 
in  which  we  find  a  sharp  antagonism  against  the  same  obstinate 
Judaism-,  against  which  Paul  afterwards  so  powerfully  pleaded. 
In  Stephen  we  see  a  first  effort,  as  yet  feeble,  for  the  emancipa- 
tion of  the  youthful  Church  from  the  fetters  which  afterwards 
cramped  her ;  he  had  an  anticipation  of  that  which  Paul  clearly 
perceived.      In  him,  also,  is  apparent  that  higher  intellectual 
aspiration  by  which  Paul  is  so  greatly  distinguished  from  Peter 
and  those  of  kindred  spirit.     His  hour  of  death,  finally,  made 
an  impression  upon  the  raging  Saul,  which  the  latter,  even  as 
Paul,  never  forgot  (Acts  22,  20). 

3.  The  Third  Gospel  and  the  Book  of  Acts,  which  we  ascribe, 
without  any  hesitation,  to  Luke,  exhibit  also  a  Pauline  char- 
acter.    Let  any  one,  for  instance,  observe  the  comprehensive 
spirit  which  they  breathe  (see,  for  example,  Luke  3,  38 ;  Acts 
8,  35-37;  comp.  1,  8)  the  contents  and  form  of  many  words 
and  deeds  of  the  Lord,  which  Luke  records  with  manifest  pref- 
erence, and  which,  in  a  certain  respect,  anticipate  the  Gospel 
of  Paul  (Luke  7, 50 ;  Chap.  15 ;  17,  7-10 ;  18, 14 ;  comp.  Acts  13, 
38-39) ;  the  similarity  of  their  accounts  of  the  institution  of 


210  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

the  Lord's  Supper,  of  the  appearance  of  the  Lord  which  was 
granted  to  Peter,  and  other  characteristics  which  furnish  indu- 
bitable proof  that  both  these  writings  proceed  from  the  imme- 
diate circle  in  which  the  Apostle  moved. 

4.  The  most  manifold  traces  of  Paulinism   are,  however,  to 
be  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ;  which  has  been  not 
inaptly  termed  "  a  jewel  of  the  Christian  canon,"  and  which, 
even  in  itself,  but  especially  in  its  relation  to  the  fundamental 
ideas  of  Paul,  is  worthy  of  the  most  careful  attention.     It  is 
of  course  not  in  place  here  to  enter  upon  the  great  number  of 
questions  of  introduction  which  this  epistle,  or  rather  treatise, 
has  called  forth.     In  our  judgment,  it  was  written  between  the 
years  60  and  70,  for  Jewish  Christians  dwelling  in  Palestine 
— not  in  the  Diaspora — with  the  distinct  purpose  of  pointing 
out  to  them  how  much  more  excellent  is  the  new  covenant  than 
the  old,  and  thereby  arming  them  against  the  danger  of  falling 
back  into  Judaism.     The  main  thought — the  theme — is  given 
in  Heb.  8,  8-13 ;  (comp.  Jer.  31,  31-34),  and  the  way  in  which 
this  is  developed  is  so  surprising,  that  it  will  well  reward  us  to 
survey  somewhat  in  detail,  the  doctrinal  peculiarities  of  this 
writer.     To  the  old  covenant  he  gives  a  high  place,  but  the 
new  dispensation  he  places  much  higher,   and  dwells  most  em- 
phatically upon  the  vocation  of  those  for  whom  the  former  has 
been  abrogated,  and  the  latter  established  in  its  place. 

5.  How  highly  the  Old  Testament  is  prized  by  this  author, 
is  at  once  evident,  from  the  point  of  view  in  which  he  regards  it 
from  the  beginning.     It  is  the  fruit  of  special  revelations  of 
God  (Heb.  1,  1),  which  He  has  granted  "  at  sundry  times  and 
in   divers  manners."      The  writer's  conception  of  God,    also, 
agrees  in  its  main  features  with  that  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Without  doubt,  he  views  Him  as  the  God  of  peace  (Heb.  13,  20), 
who  reveals  His  grace  in  a  wondrous  manner  in  the  death  of  His 
Son  (Heb.   2,  9) ;  yet  this  side  of  the  Divine  nature  does  not 
here  come  distinctly  into  the  foreground.     With  the  doubtful 
exception  of  12,  7,  the  name  of  Father  is  only  once  given  to 
God  (Heb.  12,  9),  and  then  in   a  sense  which  reminds  us  of  a 
particular  Old  Testament  declaration  (Num.  16,  22).     He  ap- 
pears here  rather  as  judge  of  all,  whose    judgment  upon  apos 
tate  sinners  is  terrible  (Heb.  12,  23-29,  comp.  Heb.  10,  26-31), 


The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine.  211 

but  whose  reward  of  the  well  doing  required  by  Him  is  equally 
certain  (Heb.  7,  9.  10  ;  11,  6.  26).  His  grace  is  not  passed  over  in 
silence  (Heb.  4,  16 ;  12,  15) ;  but  the  terrors  of  the  Lord,  much 
more  than  His  grace,  form  the  lever  and  incentive  to  action. 
On  the  other  hand,  manifest  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  omnipo- 
tence and  faithfulness  of  God,  the  Creator  of  all  things  out  of 
nothing  (Heb.  11,  3),  who  also  doeth  wonders  (Heb.  2,  4),  and 
can  swear  by  no  one  higher  (Heb.  6, 13)  than  himself;  the  living 
God  (Heb.  9,  14 ;  12,  22),  as  opposed  to  lifeless  idols ;  in  a 
word  the  Lord  (Heb.  8,  2) — just  as  Christ  was  before  (7, 14) 
extolled  as  our  Lord — on  whom  all  things  are  absolutely  de- 
pendent (Heb.  6,  3).  His  glory  is  that  of  a  Divine  hypostasis 
(self-existent  being),  reflecting  itself  in  the  Son  (Heb.  1,  3),  and 
communicating  itself  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  here,  however, 
regarded  rather  as  a  gift  than  as  a  giver  (Heb.  2,  4;  6,  4;  10, 
29).  The  Trinitarian  distinction  in  the  nature  of  the  Godhead 
is  not  here  so  unequivocally  brought  out  as  in  the  theology  of 
Paul  or  even  of  Peter.  At  least,  the  indication  of  the  [dis- 
tinct] personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  has  been  supposed 
to  be  present  in  3,  7 ;  9,  8 ;  10,  15,  is  more  or  less  doubtful 
(comp.  the  use  of  Tr^oitfw/',  Gal.  3,  8). 

6.  Since  such  a  God  has  already  revealed  himself  in  the  Old 
Testament,  it  is  no  wonder  that  our  author  prizes  very  highly 
the  record  of  this  revelation,  especially  in  its  prophetic  charac- 
ter. He  so  often  introduces  Old  Testament  citations,  that  his 
writing  in  this  respect  occupies  the  same  place  among  the  Epis- 
tles which  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  does  among  the  Gospels.  Here 
and  there,  no  less  than  Peter,  he  expresses  his  own  ideas  in  Old 
Testament  words,  without  directly  citing  them  as  such  (Heb.  12, 
12  ;  13,  6).  It  is,  indeed,  the  Holy  Ghost  himself  who  is  intro- 
duced as  speaking  in  Holy  Writ :  the  expressions  Scriplure  and 
Word  of  Q-od  here  cover  precisely  the  same  ideas  (Heb.  3,  7 ; 
10,  15).  And  it  is  not  only  the  Hebrew  original  but  also  the 
Alexandrine  translation  which  in  view  of  the  writer  is  invested 
with  high  authority.  More  closely  than  any  other  Apostolic 
writer  he  follows  the  version  of  the  Seventy  ;  so  far,  indeed,  as 
to  adopt  from  them  even  an  erroneous  rendering — the  transla- 
tion of  oznayim  by  a^a  (10,  5).  With  a  slight  exception  (10, 
30)  he  confines  himself  to  this  version  even  in  the  form  of  his 


212  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

argumentation  (Heb.  9,  16.  17) ;  at  the  same  time  he  regards 
rather  the  spirit  than  the  letter  of  the  words,  which  he  of- 
ten cites  from  memory.  The  whole  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  to  him  one  constant  reference  to  the  Messiah,  whom,  by 
virtue  of  his  peculiar  system  of  hermeneutics,  he  finds,  where 
more  modern  exegesis  would  possibly  not  even  seek  Him. 
From  his  typico-symbolic  stand-point  he  understands  without 
difficulty  of  the  Messiah  even  that  which  primarily  was  cer- 
tainly not  spoken  definitely  of  Him  (see,  for  instance,  Heb.  2, 
13b;  comp.  Isaiah  8,  17). 

7.  To  the   narratives,    likewise,   of  the  Old  Testament  he 
attaches  an  especial  value,  because  he  sees  in  them  not  only 
the  record  of  memorable   facts,  but   also  suggestive  types  of 
higher  things.      Thus,  Joshua   (Heb.  /$),  as  also  Melchisedec 
(Heb.  7),  is  to  him  a  type,  i,  e.  a  prophetic  symbol  of  the  per- 
son and  work  of  the  Eedeemer.     On  the  one  hand,  he  warns 
against  unbelief  and  disobedience  by  pointing  to  the  example 
of  the  people  of  Israel  (Heb.  4,  1.  2)  and  of  Esau  (Heb.  12,  16. 
17) ;    on   the  other    hand,  he  exhorts  to  perseverance  in  the 
Christian    race,  by  pointing  to  the  ancient  saints  as  preemi- 
nently patterns  for  believers  (Heb.  11).     He  lays  great   stress 
upon  the  spiritual  unity  of  believers  of  the  old  covenant  and 
those  of  the  new    (Heb.  11,  39.  40) ;    and  since  precisely  this 
element  of  faith  is  to  him   the  highest  manifestation  of  the 
religious  life,  he  accords  also  to  Kahab,   Samson,  and  others,  a 
place  of  honor  which,   measured  simply  by  a  moral  standard, 
they  would  possibly  not  have  deserved.     In  his  high  estimate 
of  believers  under  the  old  covenant,  and  in  the  use  he  makes 
of  sacred  history,  he  agrees  in  a  remarkable  manner  with  Paul 
and  Peter  (Rom.  4;  1  Cor.  10;  1  Peter  3).     Like  the  latter, 
also,  he  mentions  with  commendation  the   example  of  Sarah 
(Heb.  11,  11). 

8.  In  the  religious  history  of  Israel,  it  is  especially  the  sacred 
rites,  more  particularly  the  sacrifices,  on  which  the  writer  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  dwells  with  manifest  preference.     The 
Divine  origin  of  the  sacrificial  ritual  is  here  constantly  assumed 
(Heb.  11,4;  comp.  Heb.  5,  4)  ;  and  even  prayer  and  alms  are 
regarded   from  the  point   of  view  of  sacrifice  (5,  7  ;  13,  16). 
Not  all  kinds  of  sacrifice,  however,   are  here  dealt  with  ;  the 


The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine.  21 

author  directs  his  attention  especially  to  propitiatory  sacrifices 
and  sacrifices  for  sin — between  which  he  makes  no  further  dis- 
tinction— as  well  as  to  those  by  which  the  old  covenant  was 
once  inaugurated  (Heb.  10,  19-21).  He  attaches  great  signifi- 
cance to  the  sacrifice  on  the  great  day  of  Atonement  (Heb.  10, 
1 ;  13,  11) ;  as,  moreover  to  whatever  concerns  the  different  acts 
of  the  sacred  ritual,  as  the  shedding  of  the  blood  and  the  bear- 
ing of  it  for  sprinkling  into  the  innermost  sanctuary  (9,  22-24). 
The  sanctuary  itself,  is  for  him  a  feeble  image  of  the  higher 
heavenly  reality  (8,  5),  and  the  high  priest  who  enters  therein, 
performs  a  symbolical  action  which  stands  in  immediate  connec- 
tion with  the  pacification  of  the  conscience  burdened  on  account 
of  guilt. 

9.  Nevertheless,  however  great  the  value  of  all  this — which 
is  evidently  described  by  the  writer  of  the  epistle  con  amore, 
and,  as  it  were,  from  his  own  observation — it  was,  and  remain- 
ed, far  from  sufficient.  It  is  true  the  law  was  proclaimed 
through  the  ministration  of  angels  (Heb.  2,  2  ;  comp.  Gal.  3, 
19  ;  Acts  7,  53),  but  it  contains  only  the  shadow,  not  the  sub- 
stance, of  things  from  its  stand-point  yet  future  (Heb.  10,  1). 
Sacrifice,  also,  can  never  sanctify  (rek-twrm*)  him  who  presents 
it :  that  is  to  say,  through  this  the  moral  goal,  for  which  it  is 
required  and  offered,  is  never  attained.  It  is,  moreover,  offered 
by  priests  who,  themselves  subject  to  sin  and  death,  continually 
succeed  each  other  (Heb.  7,  23.  27).  It  was,  besides,  only  of 
temporary  effect,  and  must,  for  this  reason,  ever  be  renewed 
(Heb.  9,  25  ;  10,  1-4.  Above  all,  it  procured  forgiveness  only 
for  sins  committed  through  ignorance,  and  could  produce  only 
Levitical,  no  higher  (moral)  purity  (Heb.  9,  13.  14).  It  was 
able,  therefore,  to  preserve  the  transgressor  in  communion  with 
the  theocratic  nation,  but  could  not  possibly  restore  the  broken 
communion  between  God  and  the  sinner  (Heb.  10,  4).  Thus, 
it  had  its  highest  significance,  not  as  an  adequate  means  of 
atonement,  but  as  a  prophetic  symbol :  the  whole  order  of  Old 
Testament  worship  is  designed  to  point  to  that  better  thing 
which  is  yet  future  (Heb.  9,  8).  No  wonder  that  the  old  cove- 
nant was  from  the  beginning  destined  to  be  only  of  transitory 
duration  (Heb.  8,  13;  10,  9).  It  was,  indeed,  relatively  firm 
(Heb.  2,  2),  but  not  immovable  (Heb.  12,  27).  On  the  con- 


214  BMcal  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

trary,  even  the  prophets  had  proclaimed  a  new  covenant,  an 
immovable  kingdom  (Heb.  8,  8-13  :  12,  26,  sqq.),  and  naturally, 
he  who  remained  at  the  stand-point  of  the  law,  or  returned  to 
it,  came  thereby  into  conflict  with  the  word  and  spirit  of  this 
old  covenant  itself.  This  latter  has  fulfilled  its  destiny  and 
attained  its  ideal  in  the  new ;  and  Christians  are  consequently 
the  true  Israel.  The  relation  in  which  this  true  Israel  stands 
to  the  Church  of  Gentile  Christians  is  passed  over  in  silence  in 
this  epistle.  The  object  of  the  writer  is  only  to  convince  Jew- 
ish Christians  that  return  to  a  worship  which  they  had  forsaken 
would  be  simply  an  exchange  of  the  greater  for  the  immeas- 
urably less. 

10.  The  dignity  of  the  new  above  the  old  dispensation  is 
also  manifest  from  the  exalted  nature  of  the  person  who  foun- 
ded the  new  covenant.     It  belongs  to  the  peculiarities  of  our 
epistle  that  this  writer,  still  more  than  Paul  (Rom.  5,  12-21), 
makes  use  of  comparison  in  order  to  present  before  his  reader 
the  glory  of  Christ.     He  exalts  Him  (a)  far  above  all  saints  of 
the  old  covenant  (Heb.  12,  2) ;  (b)  above  the  high  priest,  who 
was  weak,   sinful,   aad  mortal  (Heb.  5,  1-3;  7,  23);  (c)  above 
the  mediator  of  the  old  covenant,  with  whom  he  stands  related 
as  the  son  to  the  bond-servant  of  the  house  (Heb.  3,  1-6) ;  (d) 
even  above  the  angels,  the  mediators  through  whom  Moses  had 
received  the  law  (Heb.  1  and  2).     As  such,   He  has  a  more  dis- 
tinguished name  than  they — that  of  Son  and  Lord,  performs  a 
higher  work  than  the  angels,  and  must  also  receive  from  them 
the  homage  of  adoration  (Heb.  1,  4.  sqq).     He  is  even— refer- 
ring to  a  very  significant  declaration  in  the  Psalms  (Heb.  1,  8) — 
here  styled  God,  and  regarded  as  the  mediate  cause  of  creation ; 
the  ground  of  the  continued  existence  of  all  things,  the  reflec- 
tion of  the  glory  of  God  (Heb.  1,  3).    "  God  finds  himself  again, 
and  reflects  himself  in  the  Son  as  in  His  other  I"  (THOLUCK). 
That  from  such  a  Christological  stand-point  the  personal  pre- 
existence  of  the  Son  is  understood,  even  though  it  be  indicated 
but  in  a  passing  way  (Heb.  9,  26),  is  self-evident 

11.  With  equal  strength  our  author  affirms  the  true  human- 
ity of  the  Lord,  so  that  his  Christology  even  bears  a  distinct 
anti-Docetic  character,  not  less  than,  for  example,  that  of  Luke's 
Gospel.      Among  the  testimonies  for  this  glorious  truth  we 


The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine.  215 

must  not  reckon  Heb.  2,  16,  since  nothing  more  is  there  said 
than  that  He  takes  up  the  case,  not  of  angels,  but  of  Abraham's 
children.  But  of  so  much  greater  weight  is  the  explicit  state- 
ment that  He  became  partaker  of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the 
children  of  men  (Heb.  2,  14,  nuQunlrjaiwg,  prorsus),  a  declaration 
which  was  early  used  by  the  Church  Fathers  as  a  weapon 
against  the  Docetae.  Equally  remarkable,  from  this  point  of 
view,  is  the  mention  of  the  days  of  the  flesh,  of  the  strong 
crying  and  tears  of  the  Lord  (Heb.  5,  7),  and  of  His  descent 
from  Judah  (Heb.  7,  14).  Far  from  being  regarded  as  of  no 
importance,  the  fact  of  the  Son's  being  truly  man  is  here 
brought  into  immediate  connection  with  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion itself.  He  can  relieve  man's  misery  only  by  personally 
sharing  it  (Heb.  2,  16-18) ;  and  consequently,  only  by  virtue 
of  a  unity  of  nature,  can  raise  his  brethren  to  his  own  holiness 
and  blessedness,  and  give  to  them  the  highest  example  and 
pattern  (Heb.  2,  11 ;  12,  2). 

12.  As  true  man,  nevertheless,  the  Lord  was  absolutely  not 
raised  above  temptation  to  sin.     In  no  single  epistle  of  the 
New  Testament  is  His  liability  to  temptation  more  unequivo- 
cally  expressed   than  here  (Heb.   4,  15).      The  sufferings  of 
Jesus  were,  on  this  account,  of  great  importance,  not  only  for 
mankind  but  also  for  Himself.     Suffering  was  the  great  means 
by  which  He  himself  was  made  perfect,   and  completely  fitted 
for  His  exalted  position ;  yea,  by  which  He  became  the  ideal 
of  humanity  (Heb.  2,  5-9 ;  comp.  Ps.  8,  4.  5).      Kemarkable, 
again,  from  this  point  of  view  is  the  special  value  the  writer 
attaches  to  that  which  took  place  in  Gethsemane  (Heb.  5,  7-9). 
Of  course  he  does  not  imply  that  the  Sufferer  was  raised  from 
unholiness  to  holiness,  but  only  that  through  temptation  He 
was  raised  to  the  highest  possible  degree  of  perfection.     Even 
the  recognition  of  such  a  faith  in  God  as  that  through  which 
alone  He  could  stand  at  the  head  of  a  bright  succession  of 
heroes  in  the  faith  (Heb.  12,  2),  proves  of  itself  how  much  he 
was  in  earnest  as  to  the  true  and  holy  humanity  of  the  Lord. 
Manifestly,  he  seeks  to  bring  Him  as  closely  into  contact  with 
humanity  as  this  can  take  place  without  prejudice  to  the  un- 
conditional acknowledgment  of  his  Godhead. 

13.  The  dignity  of  the  Lord's  person  stands,  according  to  our 
Epistle,  in  immediate  connection  with  His  work.     Precisely  as 


216  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

Son  of  God  was  He  able  to  be  not  merely  the  highest  revela- 
tion of  God  (Heb.  1,1),  but  also  the  founder  of  a  new  and  bet- 
ter covenant.  Of  this  better  covenant  He  became  the  surety 
(Heb.  7,  22),  i.  e.,  security  that  it  shall  certainly  be  fulfilled. 
The  original  word  (577 uoc)  does  not  mean  that  He  answers  to 
God  for  the  making  good  of  our  obligations,  but  that  He  an- 
swers to  us  for  the  fulfillment  of  God's  promises  :  not  of  the 
payment  of  a  debt  is  the  question  here,  but  explicitly  of  the 
founding  of  a  covenant.  No  one  but  he  who  is  led  away  by 
the  sound  of  the  words,  can  here  find  occasion  to  speak  of  the 
u  surety "  sufferings  of  Christ.  It  is  simply  said  that  in  the 
person  of  Christ  is  given  to  us  also  the  pledge  of  the  firmness  of 
the  covenanted  promises.  In  support  of  this  assertion,  the  eye 
is  directed  much  less  to  the  prophetic  and  kingly  offices  of  the 
Lord  than  to  the  high-priestly  functions  which  He  had  already 
discharged  on  earth  and  now  continues  in  heaven. 

14.  The  value  of  the  work  of  the  Lord  on  earth  as  high- 
priest  of  His  people,  is  shown  in  the  form  of  a  sustained  com- 
parison between  the  sacrifice  presented  by  Him  and  the  sin- 
offerings  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  has,  first  of  all,  a  more 
exalted  character  than  these.  If  there  the  blood  of  bulls 
and  of  goats  was  presented,  here  it  is  the  priest  who  offers  him- 
self by  a  moral  act  of  most  unconditional  obedience.  Even  the 
coming  of  the  Lord  into  the  world  is  the  fruit  and  sign  of  this 
obedience  (Heb.  10,  5),  which  attains  its  glorious  culmination 
in  His  voluntary  death  upon  the  Cross  (Heb.  5,  8.  9).  To  the 
form  in  which  this  death  was  endured,  our  author  attaches,  in 
itself,  no  special  value.  It  seems  as  though,  in  order  as  long  as 
possible  to  spare  his  Jewish  readers  the  terrible  word,  he  men- 
tions the  cross  only  in  passing,  and  towards  the  end  (Heb.  12,  2) 
of  his  epistle,  and  would  reconcile  them  to  the  thought  of 
Golgotha  by  the  suggestive  allusion  to  the  Lord's  having  there 
symbolically  suffered  without  the  gate  (Heb.  13,  12).  There  is 
less  stress  here  laid  upon  bodily  suffering  than  upon  the  blood- 
shedding  (ttfyiarex^ua/a)  regarded  as  a  personal  act ;  less  upon 
passive  suffering  than  upon  the  tasting,  proving,  experiencing 
of  death  in  all  its  bitterness  (Heb.  2,  10).  This  death  is  not 
simply  a  lot  but  an  act,  as  little  arbitrary  on  the  part  of  the 
Lord  as  of  the  Father.  On  the  contrary,  this  act  bears  a  charac- 


The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine.  217 

ter  perfectly  worthy  of  God ;  in  the  ordaining  of  it  according  to 
His  holy  will,  there  were  motives  which  in  the  highest  degree 
became  Him  who  ordained  it  (Heb.  2,  10.  17;  10, 10).  Therein 
the  grace  of  Grod  became  manifest  (Heb.  2,  10) ;  and  in  conse- 
quence thereof  Christ  becomes  not  merely  the  pledge,  but  also 
the  mediate  cause  of  salvation  (Heb.  5,  9). 

15.  This  sacrifice  has,  moreover,  a  higher  aim  than  all  which 
preceded  it     It  was  not,  like  those,  in  part  presented  for  the 
offerer's  own  sins  (Heb.  7,   27),  but  exclusively  on  behalf  of 
others.     The  innocent  and  voluntarily  shed  blood  becomes  a 
ransom  (/Ur^ov),  by  which  an  everlasting  redemption  (teiyuats)  is 
not  only  symbolized,  but  actually  brought  in.     As  a  sacrifice, 
Christ  takes  away  (dvc^^*,  Heb.  9,  28)  sins,  in  which  state- 
ment is  implied -that  He  has  first  taken  them  upon  himself:  the 
taking  away  (oter)  is  a  consequence  of  taking  them  upon  him- 
self (porter),  in  the  sense  of  making  expiation  for  them,  as  the 
sacrificial  victim  symbolically  did  for  the  sins  of  the  offerer 
(comp.  Isaiah  53,  5).     This  is  especially  manifest  where  the 
writer  says  (Heb.  9,  15)  that  the  death  of  the  Mediator  was 
necessary  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins  which  were  committed 
under  the  first  covenant  but  were  not  yet  expiated ;  and  he 
thus  ascribes  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord  a  so-called  retro-active 
effect  (Heb.  9,  26).     Such  an  operation  of  this  sacrifice  were  ab- 
solutely inconceivable  if  anything  less  than  an  objective  expia- 
tion had  here  taken  place.     In  order  to  bring  this  about,  the 
blood-shedding  of  Christ   was   indispensable ;    but   even   this 
would  not  have  been  able  to  effect  its  object,  had  it  not  been,  at 
the  same  time,  the  highest  moral  act  of  unconditional  obedience. 
For  this  offering  He  was  qualified  by  the  eternal  Spirit  which 
was  in  Him  (Heb.  9,  14),  and  in  this  sacrifice  He  is  accepted  as 
representing  His  people  who,  now  spiritually  united  to  Him, 
are  well  pleasing  to  the  Father  (Heb.  2,  11).     For  each  of  them 
(vnty  navrds,  Heb.  2,  9)  has  He  tasted  death — on  their  behalf,  in 
the  sense  that  they  are  now  delivered  from  this  punishment  of 
sin.     But  precisely  on  this  account  there  remains  for  the  man 
who  obstinately  despises  Him,  no  propitiatory  sacrifice  more 
(Heb.  10,  26).     In  any  case,  the  Levitical  sacrifice  is  for  ever 
abolished,  and  Christ  cannot  be  offered  a  second  time. 

16.  But  so,  also,  does  this  sacrifice  produce  richer  fruit  than 
all  which  have  preceded  it.     The  Lord  himself  was  thereby 

14 


218  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

rendered  inwardly  perfect,  and  led  up  by  this  path  to  glory. 
At  the  same  time  He  thus  became  meet  to  be  a  Saviour  for 
His  people,  because  by  virtue  of  innermost  sympathy,  He 
entered  wholly,  so  to  speak,  into  their  condition  (Heb.  2, 16-18). 
As  concerns  them,  our  author  expresses  their  privilege  in  a 
peculiar  manner  when  he  says  they  are,  by  this  one  offering,  for 
ever  made  perfect  (Heb.  10,  14).  It  is  not  easy  perfectly  to  de- 
line  the  whole  meaning  of  this  word  (celeiwaig).  Thus  much 
is  at  once  clear,  that  it  must  be  understood  not  in  a  purely  sub- 
jective, but  in  an  objective  sense,  and  must  be  clearly  distin- 
guished from  the  sanctification  of  believers.  Christians  are 
sanctified  (&yia^Evoi)  as  being  separated  from  the  world  and  con- 
secrated to  God  through  the  holy  Christ,  who  sanctifies  them 
(6  <fytd£ujj'  Heb.  2,  1L).  But,  as  such,  they  are  already  perfect, 
i.  e.,  they  have  become  in  principle  all  that  they  should  be. 
The  reteivjaig  includes  consequently  the  Pauline  justification 
(dixaiwuig)  and  likewise  redemption  (faolvTquuig)  •  it  is  the  restora- 
tion of  the  normal  condition  of  man  before  God,  with  all  that 
follows  therefrom.  They  who  share  in  this  salvation  are  thus 
assured  of  the  purging  (xaduQwtws,  Heb.  1,  3)  of  their  sins — a 
word  by  which  their  perfect  deliverance  not  merely  from  the  do- 
minion, but,  above  all,  from  the  guilt  of  sin  is  indicated.  Thus 
brought  into  a  state  of  peace  and  freed  from  an  evil  conscience, 
they  can  now  serve  God  without  fear  of  death ;  the  more  so,  since 
the  devil,  who  had  the  power  of  death,  has  been  morally  de- 
stroyed (Heb.  2,  14)  by  the  death  of  Christ  Yea,  even  suffering 
need  no  more  trouble  them ;  it  is  no  longer  a  punishment  but  a 
chastening,  a  sign  of  God's  fatherly  good-pleasure  (Heb.  12r 
5-11).  To  the  throne  of  grace  they  may  draw  near  with  con- 
fidence (Heb.  4,  16),  as  children  led  unto  glory  (Heb.  2,  10), 
i.  e.,  now  made  partakers  of  the  perfection  which  they  already 
in  principle  possess,  and  placed  in  a  position  corresponding 
thereto. 

17.  No  wonder  that  a  sacrifice  through  which  so  much  bless- 
ing is  obtained,  has  a  so  much  more  enduring  power  than  all 
others ;  and  also,  in  contrast  with  these,  needs  never  more 
(Heb.  7,  24-27)  to  be  repeated.  In  the  new  covenant  every- 
thing is  eternal  (Heb.  9,  12),  and  the  kingdom  of  God  an 
immovable  kingdom  (Heb.  12,  28).  It  has  been  wrongly 


The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine.  219 

inferred  from  the  references  in  Heb.  6,  4-6 ;  9,  15 ;  10,  26,  that 
the  writer  teaches  only  forgiveness  of  those  sins  which  were 
committed  before  conversion.  Like  the  person  (Heb.  13,  8),  so 
also  the  work  of  Christ  (Heb.  9,  12)  has  in  his  eye  an  ever-abid- 
ing worth ;  and  precisely  the  warning  against  one  sin  which  is 
never  to  be  forgiven,  presupposes  that  for  lesser  transgressions, 
which  are  the  fruit  of  remaining  weakness,  no  similar  judgment 
is  to  be  apprehended.  The  less  so  because  the  work  of  me- 
diation, once  accomplished  on  earth,  is  unceasingly  continued 
in  heaven. 

18.  The  heavenly  work  of  the  Lord  began  with  His  glorifica- 
tion in  heaven,  to  which,  on  account  of  its  symbolic  importance, 
the  highest  value  is  attached  in  this  epistle.     Manifestly,  the 
ascension  is  here  regarded  as  a  fact  accomplished  once  for  all 

,  Heb.  9,  12).  Heaven  itself  is  a  definite  locality  (kv 
is,  Heb.  1,  3 ;  8,  1)  with  which  the  innermost  sanctuary  of 
Israel's  temple  could  in  some  sense  be  compared ;  or  rather  the 
heavenly  things  themselves  are  invisible  realities,  of  which  the 
earthly  are  only  a  resembling  shadow.  Into  this  heaven  Christ 
is  entered  to  present  His  own  sacrificial  blood  before  the  pres- 
ence of  God  (Heb.  9,  24-26) ;  and  Christians  see  the  entrance 
thither  opened  through  Him,  since  by  His  death  the  interven- 
ing veil  has  been,  as  it  were,  removed  from  before  their  steps 
(Heb.  10,  19).  The  work  which  the  Lord  there  accomplishes 
on  their  behalf  is  indeed  a  priestly,  but,  at  the  same  time,  a 
truly  kingly  one  (Heb.  7,  25 ;  9,  24 ;  10,  13).  He  represents 
them  by  intercession  and  sacrifice  ;  but  is,  at  the  same  time — 
like  a  second  Melchesidec  (Heb.  7) — the  priest-king,  who  is 
clothed  not  merely  with  the  highest  honor,  but  also  with  the 
highest  power  for  the  vanquishing  of  his  foes  (Heb.  10,  13),  and 
for  the  perfecting  of  the  salvation  of  his  friends  (Heb.  9,  28). 

19.  This  vanquishing,  and  this  completion  of  salvation  be- 
come manifest  at  the  impending  Advent  of  the  Lord.     He  is 
then  seen  a  second  time,  without  henceforth  standing  in  any 
relation  to  sin,  which  He  has  here  put  away  (9,  28).     The  cer- 
tainty  that  this  coming  cannot  be  long   delayed,  gives  an 
increased  importance  to  the  exhortation  to  patient  endurance 
(Heb.  3,  6.  14 ;  10,  36.  37).     Then  will  take  place  the  judgment 
(according  to  9,  27,  after  death  no  doubt,  but  on  that  account 


220  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

immediately  after)  which,  in  accordance  with  the  Old  Testament 
standpoint  of  this  Epistle,  is  constantly  ascribed  to  God  him- 
self (Heb.  12,  23 ;  13,  4),  without  express  mention  of  Christ. 
The  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  here  £>nly  incidentally  referred 
to  (Heb.  11,  18.  19),  and  is  not  more  fully  treated  of.  It 
belonged,  indeed,  to  the  first  principles  (Heb.  6,  2),  sufficiently 
well  known,  and  regarded,  in  all  probability,  in  the  same  light 
by  this  writer  as  by  his  fellow- witnesses.  Eternal  judgment, 
however,  is  here  distinctly  described  as  a  terrible  retribution 
upon  faithless  professors  of  Christ  (Heb.  6,  8 ;  10,  26,  sqq.) ; 
whilst  the  future  blessedness  of  the  faithful  is  represented  as 
personal  participation  in  the  eternal  Sabbath-rest  of  God  (Heb. 
4,  9-11).  Nevertheless,  the  eye  of  faith  is  not  directed  exclu- 
sively to  a  yet  distant  future.  The  children  of  the  new  cove- 
nant are  already  brought  into  the  closest  relation  with  a 
perfected  society  in  heaven  (12,  18-24),  to  which  belong  the 
saints  who  have  fallen  asleep  under  the  old  covenant,  but  who 
only  now,  in  communion  with  believers  of  the  new,  perfectly 
attain  to  their  heavenly  destination  (Heb.  11,  39.  40).  Yet  a 
last  shock  is  expected  by  the  writer,  in  the  destruction  of  the 
earthly  economy,  which  like  the  first  dispensation,  must  pass 
away.  Then,  however,  he  sees  the  coming  and  remaining  of 
those  things  which  are  immovable  (Heb.  12,  26-28). 

20.  From  the  possession  of  such  great  privileges,  arise  natu- 
rally manifold  duties.     Like  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  that  to 
the  Hebrews  has,  after  the  theoretical,  a  practical  and  hortatory 
(Heb.  10,  19  ;  13,  21)  division.    The  conception  of  the  Christian 
life  as  a  life  of  faith,  of  hope,  and  of  love,  clearly  underlies  the 
teaching  of  this  Epistle  (Heb.  6,  10-12  ;  10,  22-24).     A  power- 
ful incentive  to  active  faith  is  found  in  11,  1—40 ;  to  patient 
hope,  in  12,  1-13  ;  to  holy  love,  in  12,  14-13,  21. 

21.  The  author's  idea  of  faith  is  as  pure  as  it  is  susceptible 
of  application  to  all  believers  of  the  old  and  of  the  new  cove- 
nant.    The  great  object  of  this  faith  is  God  (Heb.  6,  1),  whom 
he  regards  as  faithful  (Heb.  10,  23),  and  beholds  with  the  eye 
of  the  spirit  (Heb.  11,  27).     In  this,  his  faith,  the  believer  has 
assurance,  even  in  regard  to  those  things  invisible  and  as  yet 
future  (Heb.  11,  1) ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  he  has  confidence 
to  draw  near  to  Him  from  whom  he  is  no  longer  estranged 


The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine.  221 

(Heb.  4,  15  ;  10,  19-22)  by  trembling  fear.  Without  this  faith 
it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  enter  into  communion  with  God, 
and  to  become  well  pleasing  to  Him ;  but  precisely  on  this 
account  is  it  also  urgently  necessary,  not  merely  to  persevere, 
but  also  to  abound  therein  (Heb.  3,  6  ;  10,  22).  As  now  faith 
is  assured  of  the  reality  of  invisible  things,  so  hope  looks  for- 
ward to  the  personal  possession  of  the  same  in  the  future.  To 
such  an  extent  is  this  of  importance,  that  the  Christian  confes- 
sion may  be  called  a  confession  of  hope  (Heb.  10,  23).*  Entirely 
in  the  spirit  of  Paul,  is  it  here  also,  presented  as  a  great  object 
of  glorying  (Heb.  3,  6 ;  comp.  Heb.  10,  35),  and  as  a  motive 
for  patient  endurance,  and  also  for  steadfast  perseverance  (Heb. 

12,  1).      Through  suffering  is  this  hope  purified,  but  by  no 
means  destroyed  ;  and  this  suffering  itself  is  a  chastening  which 
comes  from  God,  is  imposed  in  love,  ministers  to  higher  aims, 
and  ends  in  glory  (Heb.  12,  4-11).     The  love,  finally,  which  is 
here  commanded,  extends  to  all  (Heb.  12,  14 ;  comp.  Kom.  12, 
18),  and  especially  to  the  brethren  (Heb.  13,  1),  and  of  these 
again,  most  of  all,  the  unfortunate  and  necessitous  (Heb.  13,  2. 
3).     Even  when  the  author  is  commending  love,  his  words 
have  an  entirely  Old  Testament  coloring  (Heb.  13,  2 ;  comp. 
Gen.    18,    1).     Beneficence   and  compassion   are   regarded   as 
sacrifices:   the  confession  of  the  name  of  God  as  the  sacri- 
fice of  praise  (Heb.  13,   15.  16 ;    comp.   Rom.   12,  1).     From 
this  love  arises  the  exercise  of  all  the  duties  of  godliness,  and 
particularly  those  of   brotherly   exhortation  and  intercession 
(Heb.  10,  22-24 ;  13,  18),  of  modesty  and  contentment  (Heb. 

13,  4-6  ;  comp.  Heb.  12, 16),  those  of  obedience  towards  deserv- 
ing leaders,  and,  finally,  that  of  remembering  those  who  are 
fallen  asleep  (Heb.  13,  7.  17). 

22.  The  exhortations  with  which  the  author  urges  to  the 
fulfillment  of  these  duties  are,  in  general,  based  upon  the 
magnitude  of  the  blessings  received  (/'%*"  %x™t*ev,  let  us  have 
gratitude,  Heb.  12,  28) ;  more  especially  upon  the  glorious 
fruits  of  fidelity,  and  the  terrible  punishment  of  unfaithfulness 
(Heb.  6,  4-10).  Such  an  unfaithfulness  he  regards  as  possible 
even  where  a  very  high  degree  of  Christian  knowledge  and 

*  [According  to  the  reading  of  the  best  MSS.,  including  the  Alexandrine 
and  the  Sinaitic.] 


222  Biblical  Theology  of  the  Neiv  Testament. 

experience  lias  been  attained ;  although  it  cannot  be  shown 
that  he  looks  upon  those  for  whom  this  possibility  has  become 
a  reality,  as  being  originally  true  and  living  Christians.  It  is 
remarkable  that  in  the  classical  text  in  his  Epistle,  which  treats 
on  this  matter  (Heb.  6,  4-6;  Luther  calls  it  "a  hard  knot"), 
neither  their  faith,  their  hope,  nor  their  love  is  mentioned. 
Nevertheless,  even  for  the  most  advanced,  constant  admonition 
is  necessary  (Heb.  10,  32) ;  and  not  in  themselves,  but  in  God's 
faithfulness,  have  believers  to  seek  the  final  ground  of  their 
rest  and  hope  (Heb.  6,  10.  11 ;  10,  36-39). 

23.  Keference  to  suitable  helps,  by  means  of  which  such  a 
Christian  life  is  nourished,  is  also  not  wanting  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.     In  general,  grace  is  mentioned  as  that  by  which 
the  heart  is  strengthened  (Heb.   13,  9) ;  while  the  means  of 
grace,  also,  are  not  passed  over  in  silence.     Only  once  does  the 
author  allude  to  the  rite  of  baptism  (Heb.  10,  22),  and  011  an- 
other   occassion    he  indirectly  alludes  to  the  Lord's    Supper 
(Heb.  13,  10).     Especially  is  it  recommended  to  believers,  as  a 
powerful  means  of  help,  to  look  back,  on  the  one  hand,  upon 
their  own  former  condition  and  life's  experience  (Heb.  10,  32, 
sqq.);  on  the  other  hand,  and  above  all,  upon  the  example  of 
so  many  ancient  heroes  of  the  faith,  who,  as  a  cloud  of  wit- 
nesses, surround  them  in  the  Christian  course.      But  though 
looking  upon  them,  they  have  need  especially  to  fix  their  eye 
upon  their  great  Leader  (Heb.  12,  1.  2),  and  to  watch  lest  they 
fall  from  their  former  height  (Heb.  12,  15). 

24.  From  this  brief  survey  of  its  doctrinal  teachings,  it  is 
manifest  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  may  be  called  "a  faith- 
ful reflection  of  the  spirit  of  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles." 
Without  doubt,  there  is  between  the  writer's  mode  of  concep- 
tion and  that  of  Paul,  a  difference  by  no  means  insignificant. 
The  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  of  spiritual  com- 
munion with  Christ,  and  of  the  universal  destination  of  Chris- 
tianity, is  here  not  so  much  as  glanced  at ;  the  resurrection  of 
the  Lord  receives  only  once  a  passing  mention  (Heb.  13,  20), 
and   the  whole  relation   of    Christianity  to  the  old  dispensa 
tion  is  presented  in  some  measure  differently  from  the  manner 
in  which  it  is  represented  by  the  Apostle  of  liberty.     The 
whole  conception  of  the  doctrine  of  sin,  above  all,  appears,  in 


The  Kindred  Types  of  Doctrine.  223 

Paul's  teaching,  to  be  much  deeper.  On  the  other  hand,  how- 
ever, it  is  at  once  manifest  that  the  author — more  than  proba- 
bly a  richly-gifted  disciple  of  the  Pauline  school — contradicts 
his  master  in  no  single  respect,  but  rather  attaches  himself  to 
the  Apostle's  doctrinal  development,  and  in  his  own  manner 
develops,  apologetically,  the  main  idea  which  Paul,  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  had  developed  polemically.  If  the 
conception  of  Christ  as  the  second  Adam  is  not  found  here, 
yet  the  truly  human,  together  with  the  truly  Divine  nature  in 
Him,  is  certainly  no  less  insisted  on  in  this  Epistle.  If  with 
Paul  the  suffering  Christ  is  more  especially  a  sacrificial  victim, 
while  here  He  is  at  once  priest  and  victim,  the  one  conception 
satisfactorily  complements  the  other.  Without  doubt,  faith  is 
here  more  especially  regarded  in  its  relation  to  God,  while  in 
Paul  it  is  more  especially  regarded  in  its  relation  to  Christ  ; 
but,  in  either  case,  faith  properly  has  reference  to  the  great 
Divine  promises  of  salvation,  whose  living  center  is  Christ.  In 
no  case  can  it  be  shown  that  in  our  Epistle  a  radically  Judaistic 
and  a  radically  Pauline  conception  stand  in  irreconcilable  antag- 
onism (BAUR).  Many  an  essential  difference  is  to  be  explained 
by  the  entirely  exceptional  condition  of  the  reader  and  the 
definite  aim  of  the  writer ;  and,  upon  a  sustained  comparison 
with  Paul,  we  believe  that  just  as  little  is  a  harsh  dissonance  as 
an  impersonal  echo  to  be  observed  here. 

On  the  Paulinism  of  Luke,  see  our  u  Life  of  Jesus,"  I,  91. 
On  the  doctrinal  ideas  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  general, 
as  well  as  in  relation  to  Paul,  our  "Christol  of  the  N.  T."  316- 
359  ;  VAN  DER  HAM,  Diss.  Theol.  (1847) ;  [DALE,  Sermons  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews']  ;  but,  best  of  all,  the  excellent  monograph 
of  RIEHM.  "  The  Doctrinal  System  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
exhibited,"  &c.,  in  2  parts,  Ludwigsb.,  1858,  1859.  On  the 
Christology  of  this  Epistle,  a  Latin  Programme,  by  MOLL, 
Halle,  1854, 1855.  On  the  difficult  place,  Chap.  9,  14,  the  Diss. 
Theol.  of  BOON  MESCH,  Lugd.  Bat,  1825.  On  Chap.  11,  the 
Diss.  Theol.  of  HUET,  Lugd.  Bat,  1824.  On  the  whole  Epistle, 
the  Bijbelstudien  of  D.  CHANTEPIE  DE  LA  SAUSSAYE,  3  parts, 
Leyden,  1860.  See  also  VAN  KOETSVELD,  "  The  Apostolic  Gos- 
pel," the  Hague,  1865.  Also  the  two  appendices  of  Tholuck  to 
his  excellent  Commentary  on  this  Epistle. 


224  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

Questions  for  consideration.  —  To  what  extent  is  the  discourse 
of  Stephen  an  anticipation  of  the  Pauline  position?  —  What 
Pauline  elements  have  the  writings  of  Luke,  above  those  of 
Matthew  and  Mark  ?  —  In  what  relation  does  the  investigation 
of  the  doctrinal  teachings  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  stand 
to  the  inquiry  in  regard  to  its  author  ?  —  His  doctrine  of  God 
and  His  revelation.  —  Of  man  and  of  sin.  —  Of  the  person  and 
work  of  the  Eedeemer.  —  Of  the  diversity  and  the  connection 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  —  Christ,  as  compared  with 
Melchisedec,  Moses,  and  Aaron.  —  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
compared  with  the  standpoint  of  the  Jewish-  Alexandrine 
theology  of  this  period. 


Result  and  Transition. 

Notwithstanding  all  the  diversity  of  gifts  and  of  other  pecu- 
liarities between  Peter  and  Paul  and  their  fellow-witnesses,  the 
unity  of  spirit  between  both  is  so  manifest,  that  the  latter,  no 
less  than  the  former,  deserves  the  name  of  a  Pillar  among  the 
Apostles  (Gal.  2,  9).  The  Pauline  development  of  doctrine,  as 
a  whole,  stands  far  above  even  the  Petrine,  just  as  the  develop 
ment  of  Christianity  itself  in  the  Gentile  world  stands  above 
the  original  Judaeo-Christianism.  As  the  doctrinal  system  of 
Paul  is  the  rich  fulfillment  of  the  promise  given  in  the  Petrine, 
so  in  turn  it  constitutes  a  preparation  and  transition  to  the  pro- 
found theology  of  John. 

1.  If  we  look  back  from  the  now  completed  Pauline  circle 
of  ideas  to  the  earlier  considered  Petrine  ones,  nothing  strikes 
us  more  forcibly  than  the  greater  breadth  of  the  former  as 
compared  with  the  latter.  It  is  still  more  surprising  to  observe 
that  the  independence  of  the  Apostle's  testimony,  which  fully 
entitled  him  to  speak  of  his  gospel,  leads  him  in  no  single 
essential  point  into  contradiction  with  the  earlier  testimony  of 
his  fellow-apostles.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  manifest  that  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship  which  three  of  them  extended  to  Paul 
and  Barnabas  (Gal.  2,  9),  was  the  symbol  of  a  living  —  and,  pre- 


Result  and  Transition.  225 

cisely  for  this  reason,  anything  but  monotonous — unity.  The 
essential  difference  can  be  so  satisfactorily  explained — partly 
from  the  dissimilarity  of  the  individuals,  partly  from  that 
of  the  field  of  labor  and  of  aim  in  the  different  witnesses 
— that  it  serves  much  more  for  the  establishment  than  for 
the  undermining  of  the  Apostolic  testimony.  Nothing  brings 
out  more  forcibly  the  superficial  character  (notwithstanding  all 
its  show  of  profundity)  of  the  modern -romantic  reconstruction 
of  the  Apostolic  age,  than  an  impartial  study  of  the  different 
Apostolic  types  of  doctrine  in  the  light  of  isagogics  and  psy- 
chology. 

2.  The  higher  harmony  of  the  Pauline    with  the  Petrine 
doctrine  of  system  detracts  nothing  from  the  rich  originality  of 
the  former.     It  is  the  first  strikingly  successful  attempt  of  an 
able  and  philosophic  thinker,  enlightened  by  a  higher  spirit,  to 
reduce  to  a  higher  unity  the  infinite  riches  of  truth  and  life 
revealed  in  the  Gospel.      "Never  had  Christian    truth   been 
expressed  with  so  much  richness  and  depth ;  never  had  it  taken 
a  form  so  systematic  and  so  rigorous.     It  is  a  totality  of  facts 
and  ideas  in  which  everything  is  bound  together  and  interlaced, 
and  in  which  the  infinite  diversity  of   details  reduces  itself 
without  difficulty  to  the  unity  of  a  central  and  fruitful  thought, 
which  is,  as  it  were,  the  corner-stone  of  the  whole  edifice.     We 
recognize  in  this  powerful  dialectic  a  spirit  nourished  by  severe 
studies,  and  singularly  trained  to  all  the  exercises  of  thought 
Thus,  the  teaching  of  Paul  marks  an  incontestable  progress 
beyond  that  of  James  and  of  Peter  "  (BONIFAS).     The  Pauline 
catholicity  stands  related  to  the  theology  of  Judseo-Christianism, 
as  the  spirit  of  the  reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century  to  the 
ecclesiastical  piety  of   the  Middle  Ages.     Yea,  truly,   "Paul 
would  have  been  the  prince  of  philosophers  if  he  had  not  been 
the  greatest  of  the  Apostles  "  (A.  MONOD). 

3.  Yet  the  highest  conceivable  development  of  the  Christian 
process  of  thought  is  to  be  found  no  more  in  Paul  than  in 
Peter.     The  deepest  insight  into  the  mystery  of  godliness  is  to 
be  obtained  not  simply  in  the  way  of  acute  logical  demonstra- 
tion, but  chiefly  in  the  way  of  spiritual  contemplation.     In 
Peter,  it  is  the  voice  of  memory  and  experience  that  speaks ; 
in  Paul,  there  is  united  with  this  last  the  power  of  Christian 


226  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

thought,  which,  when  necessary,  can  also  wield  the  weapons  of 
a  fine  dialectic  ;  but  it  is  John  alone  who,  with  a  piercing  eagle  - 
eye,  penetrates  into  the  deepest  depths.  The  theology  of  Paul 
develops  itself  in  a  series  of  most  remarkable  antitheses ;  but 
the  complete  reconciliation  of  these  antitheses,  of  which  it 
speaks,  is  fully  given  only  from  the  standpoint  of  John. 
Apparently,  the  difference  between  the  latter  and  Paul  is  much 
greater  than  between  Paul  and  Peter.  The  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  especially,  seems  to  present  one  almost  continual 
contrast  to  the  ideas  of  John.  Yet  the  development  of  the 
latter  will  show  us  that  many  a  Pauline  element  here  first 
attains  to  its  full  development,  and  that  not  a  little  which  is 
testified  by  Peter  and  confirmed  by  Paul,  is,  if  possible,  by  the 
Patriarch  of  the  Apostles,  developed  fr-om  a  yet  higher  point 
of  view,  and  yet  more  profoundly  conceived  of. 

Compare,  in  addition  to  works  mention  at  end  of  §  33,  the 
treatise  of  THOLUCK  in  his  " Miscellaneous  Writings"  II,  272- 
329 :  as  also  that  of  Paret,  "  Paul  and  Jesus"  in  the  Jahrbb. 
fur  Deutsche  TheoL,  1858. 

Questions  for  consideration. — The  alleged  conflict  of  principles 
between  Paul  and  his  fellow-apostles  tried  before  their  own 
tribunal,  Gal.  2. — Compare  with  Acts  15. — Comparative  view 
of  the  Petrine  and  the  Pauline  theology  in  their  main  points. 
— Is  there  ground  for  ascribing,  with  Baur,  to  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  a  reconciliatory  tendency,  with  the  view  of  har- 
monizing Paulinism  with  the  ideas  of  the  Kevelation  of  John. 


General  Survey.  227 

• 
CHAPTEK  III. 

THE  THEOLOGY  OF  JOHN. 

§45. 
General  Survey. 

The  doctrinal  teaching  of  John,  the  Apostle  of  Love,  oc- 
cupies not  merely  the  last,  but  also  the  highest  place  in  the 
series  of  Apostolic  testimonies,  and  to  this  extent  sets  the 
crown  upon  that  which  Paul,  the  Apostle  of  Faith,  and  Peter, 
the  Apostle  of  Hope,  had  already  placed  in  a  clear  light.  It 
is  learned  from  the  Apostle's  own  utterances,  recorded  partly 
in  his  Gospel  and  Epistles,  partly  in  the  Apocalypse,  which 
we  shall  proceed  to  examine  each  singly,  and  in  this  order. 
In  all  he  proceeds  from  Christ  as  a  center,  and  reveals  in  his 
unmistakable  individuality,  on  the  one  hand,  an  apologetic 
and  mystical,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  an  Israelitish-prophetic 
character. 

1.  As  in  the  natural,  so  also  in  the  spiritual  domain,  that 
which  is  noblest  comes  most  slowly  to  perfection.  Peter  and 
Paul  had  already  given  their  written  testimony,  and  left  the 
scene  of  their  earthly  activity,  before  the  testimony  of  John 
was  heard.  It  is  the  fruit  of  personal  recollection,  refined  by 
inner  contemplation,  before  which  the  past  reproduced  itself 
and  the  mystery  of  the  future,  in  consequence  of  renewed 
revelation,  was  directly  revealed.  No  wonder  that  the  Church 
in  all  ages  has  attached  the  highest  value  to  the  testimony  of 
the  bosom  friend  of  the  Lord,  the  most  long-lived  and  pro- 
found of  all  the  apostles.  While  the  Petrine  theology  bears 
a  Jewish-Christian,  the  Pauline  a  Gentile-Christian  character, 
we  here  find  the  whole  opposition  between  the  Gospel  on  the 
one  hand,  and  Judaism  and  heathenism  on  the  other,  thrown 
into  the  shade,  and  Christianity  regarded,  in  the  fullest  sense 
of  the  word,  as  the  absolute  religion.  Thus,  the  highest  point 


228  Biblical  Tlieology  of  the  New  Testament. 

of  view  is  attained  ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  future  develop 
ment  of  Church  and  theology  is  sketched  in  broad  outlines. 
The  Petrine  type  is  made  prominent  in  the  Boman  Catholic, 
the  Pauline  in  the  Protestant  development  of  Church  and 
doctrine ;  the  Johannean  theology  seems  emphatically  destined 
to  become  the  theology  of  the  future. 

2.  The  doctrinal  ideas  of  John  we  learn,  more  than  in  the 
case  of  Paul  and  Peter,   exclusively  from  his  own  writings. 
Among  these,  the  authenticity  of  the  Apocalypse,  even  in  the 
judgment  of  the  Tubingen  school,  stands  incontestably  firm, 
while  that  of  the  Gospel  and  the  First  Epistle  begins  to  come 
forth  victoriously  from  the  fiery  ordeal  of  the  latest  attack. 
That  also  of  the  Second  and  Third  Epistles,  although  of  quite 
subordinate  importance  for  our  purpose,  can  be  satisfactorily 
defended.     Illustrious  names  show  that  it  is  possible  to  be  a 
truly  scientific  theologian  and  yet  to  regard  as  authentic  all  the 
writings  which  bear  the  name  of  John ;  while,  on  the  contrary, 
it  is  becoming  more  and  more  evident  that  the  Presbyter  John, 
to  whom  in  contra-distinction  from  the  Apostle,  a  part  of  these 
writings  has  been  ascribed,  is  a  rather  doubtful,  perhaps  an  im- 
aginary person. 

3.  The  order  in  which  the   Johannean  writings   are  to  be 
examined  is  determined  by  the  verdict  of  criticism  as  to  the 
time  of  their  composition.     To  us  it  is  certain  that  the  Apoc- 
alypse was  written,  not  under  Nero,  but  under  Domitian,  and 
therefore,  after  the  Grospel  and  the  Epistles.     "  The  Johannean 
writings  form  a  trilogy  ;  the  Gospel  basis,  the  organic  confor- 
mation, the  final  and  eternal  future  of  the  Church :  Christ  who 
was,  who  is,  and  who  is  to  come :   the  Gospel,  the  Epistles, 
and  the  Apocalyp'se  "  (LANGE).     In  the  contemplation  of  the 
Gospel  as  a  source  of  knowledge  for  the  Johannean  doctrine, 
we  must  by  no  means  take  into  account  the  utterances  of  the 
Johannean  Christ,  but  exclusively  those  in  which   the  Evan- 
gelist  himself  appears    as   witness  or    defender.      These    are 
John  1,  1-18 ;  2,  21.  22  ;  3,  16-21  (?) ;  3,  31-36  (?) ;  6,  64-71 ; 
7,  39  ;  11,  51.  52;  12,  14-16;  12,  33.  37-43;  13,  1-3  ;  19,  28. 
35-37 ;  20,  30.  31 ;  21,  25.     (Compare  §  17,  3.) 

4.  Scarcely  do  we,  in  the  light  of  these  utterances,  take  the 
first  step  in  the  domain  of  the  Johannean  theology,  when  it 


General  Survey.  229 

becomes  apparent  that  it  bears,  both  in  respect  to  contents  and 
form,  a  highly  peculiar  character.  John  stands  entirely  alone, 
without  any  of  his  fellow-witnesses  having  exerted  on  him  any 
appreciable  influence,  such,  for  instance,  as  Paul  did  on  the 
writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  or  Peter  upon  Mark. 
His  theology,  as  we  learn  it  especially  from  Gospel  and  Epistle, 
bears  the  character  less  of  a  definite  doctrinal  development  than 
of  an  animated  testimony.  Not  dialectics,  but  intuition ;  not 
the  intellect,  but  the  feelings ;  not  the  future,  with  its  lofty 
expectations,  but  the  present,  with  its  priceless  blessings,  are 
ever  prominent  in  the  didactic  writings  of  John.  In  only  a 
single  instance  is  the  contrast  between  Law  and  Gospel  pointed 
out,  which  occupies  so  important  a  place  in  Paul ;  with  John 
the  Gospel  stands  not  only  in  diametrical  opposition  to  the  law, 
but  also  immeasurably  above  it.  The  cause  of  this  pheno- 
menon it  is  not  dimcult  to  discover.  John  probably  never 
occupied  a  standpoint  so  strictly  legal  as  James,  for  example ; 
much  less  did  he  experience  such  a  sudden  transition  from  dark- 
ness to  light  as  Paul.  As  the  sun  causes  the  blossom  to  unfold, 
so  the  meeting  with  Christ  and  the  continued  contemplation 
of  Him  (John  1,  40)  had  awakened  his  spiritual  life  with  silent 
but  mighty  power  ;  and  of  this  inner  life,  his  doctrine,  so  far  as 
we  can  speak  of  a  doctrine  in  connection  with  him,  is  at  once 
the  expression  and  the  key.  No  Apostle  has  expressed  more 
profound  ideas  with  less  profusion  of  language.  The  vocabu- 
lary of  John  is  comparatively  poor,  but  the  value  of  his  ex- 
periences far  surpasses  that  of  their  verbal  exponent.  "The 
author  resembles  a  great  lord  who  never  pays  except  in  large 
coins"  (GODET).  The  inscription  on  Herder's  monument  at 
Weimar — "Light,  love,  life" — embodies  also  the  fundamental 
idea  of  John's  theology;  but  who  has  ever  yet  perfectly 
fathomed  this  in  the  spirit  of  the  Apostle  ?  This  is  the  more 
dimcult,  since  the  different  ideas  are  here  much  less  distinctly 
separated  than,  in  Paul,  for  example,  and  unconsciously  flow 
into  each  other.  The  Johannean  theology  is  less  developed  in 
breadth  than  in  depth  and  height.  Light  and  life,  faith  and 
knowledge,  sin  and  falsehood,  truth  and  holiness  are,  with 
John,  so  intimately  connected,  that  here,  if  anywhere,  an 
entire  separation  of  the  doctrine  of  faith  and  of  morals  is 
absolutely  impossible. 


230  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

5.  As  the  Pauline  theology  bears  an  anthropological  (§  23,  4), 
so  does  the  Johannean  bear  an  especially  Christological  character. 
Without  doubt,  the  Apostle  proceeds  in  his  doctrine  from  God, 
but  only  as  He  is  known  in  Christ.  Upon  the  person  of  Christ, 
more  even  than  upon  His  work,  is  manifest  stress  laid;  the 
world,  sin,  the  Church,  the  future,  all  are  viewed  in  the  light  of 
the  historic  manifestation  of  Christ.  As  in  James,  the  opposi- 
tion between  knowing  and  doing,  and  in  Paul,  between  sin  and 
grace,  so,  in  John,  the  contrast  between  darkness  and  death  out 
of  Christ,  and  light  and  life  through  Christ,  is  the  axis  around 
which  all  revolves.  The  historic  manifestation  of  the  incarnate 
Word  is  affirmed  in  the  Gospel  and  Epistle,  the  future  revela- 
tion of  the  glorified  Son  of  man  in  the  Apocalypse,  with  a 
power  and  an  emphasis  which  cannot  be  surpassed. 

(3.  In  the  Gospel  and  Epistle  this  testimony  bears  a  distinctly 
apologetic,  and  at  the  same  time,  an  exalted  mystical  character. 
Without  its  being  necessary  to  ascribe  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  a 
directly  polemical  tendency  (design)  opposed  to  particular  per- 
sons or  schools,  we  may  yet  infer  (John  20,  31)  that  the  aim  of 
the  Evangelist  was  to  strengthen  the  faith  of  his  readers, 
especially  at  a  time  in  which  so  many  doubtful  phenomena 
were  appearing.  Now  and  then,  the  apologetical  becomes  di- 
rectly polemical  (1  John  4,  2.  3  ;  2  John  9-11),  but  even  where 
he  combats  error,  it  is  not  by  means  of  acute  reasoning,  but  by 
a  powerful  witnessing  of  that  which  he  himself  has  passed 
through,  and  has,  in  a  spiritual  manner,  experienced.  Often 
he  loses  himself,  as  it  were,  in  the  contemplation  of  a  past  or 
a  future,  which  to  him  has  become  present ;  so  that  it  can  be 
said  with  truth  of  his  theology,  "  It  is  not  a  product  of  specu- 
lation, but  of  contemplation ;  it  is  a  theology  essentially  mysti- 
cal, which  requires  but  a  limited  number  of  ideas,  and  a  theory 
altogether  simple  for  the  edification  of  the  life  which  it  would 
make  to  issue  from  the  bottom  of  the  soul"  (KEiiss). 

7.  In  the  Apocalypse,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Apostolic  testi- 
mony takes  a  high  prophetic  flight,  but  without  any  sacrifice  of 
its  original  Israelitish  character.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  manifest 
that  the  seer  is  intimately  familiar  with  the  visions  of  the  Old 
Testament,  especially  those  of  Ezekiel  and  Daniel,  and  that 
even  the  most  fully  developed  of  the  Apostles  at  the  end  of  his 


General  Survey.  231 

course,  had  by  no  means  torn  himself  from  the  theocratic-na- 
tional ground  in  which  he  had  once  been  rooted.  He  who  re- 
gards it  as  absolutely  impossible  that  one  and  the  same  John 
should  have  written  the  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse,  has  not 
duly  considered  either  the  wealth  of  his  individuality,  or  the 
considerable  period  of  time  which  had  elapsed  between  the  com- 
position of  the  one  writing  and  that  of  the  other,  or  the  great 
difference  of  their  contents,  aim  and  character.  A  continued 
investigation  leads  rather  to  the  conclusion  that  only  an  Evan- 
gelist like  this  could  have  written  the  Apocalypse,  and  only  an 
Apocalyptist  like  this  could  have  written  the  Gospel 

8.  After  what  has  been  said,  we  cannot  greatly  wonder  that 
the  attempts  at  the  treatment  of  the  Johannean  doctrinal  system 
have  been  made  in  very  different  ways,  and  have  not  always 
proved  successful.  Especial  reference  is  due  to  the  work  of 
REUSS  (I  c.  II,  p.  336),  which  has  developed  this  whole  type  of 
doctrine  out  of  1  John  4,  9,  as  compared  with  John  3,  16  (which 
latter  passage,  however,  contains  none  of  John's  own  words). 
We  believe  we  shall  remain  most  true  to  the  historico-Christo- 
logical  character  of  the  Johannean  theology,  if,  in  the  examina- 
tion of  the  Gospel  and  Epistle,  we  give  especial  attention  to  the 
Apostle's  representation  of  the  world,  out  of  Christ,  the  appear- 
ing of  Christ,  and  the  life  in  Christ.  In  the  docfrinal  system  of 
the  Apocalypse,  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  coming  is,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  the  one  which  demands  the  greatest  at- 
tention. 

Comp.  on  John  and  his  theology,  the  Art  of  EBRARD  in  HER- 
ZOG-'S  R.  E.  VI.  In  defence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  Apocalypse,  the  prize  treatise  of  NIERMEIJER,  Hague 
Society  XIII,  (1852),  and  the  "Introduction  to  the  N.  T."  by 
SCHOLTEN,  Leiden,  1856.  On  the  priority  of  the  date  of  the 
Apocalypse  over  the  Gospel,  our  "  Christology  of  the  N.  T."  bl. 
366-379,  and  an  article  by  GODET  in  the  Revue  Chret.  of  1865, 
p.  239-249  of  the  Bulletin  Theol 

On  the  doctrinal  type  of  John,  the  frequently-cited  writings 
of  SCHMID,  MESSNER,  REUSS,  LECHLER,  DE  PRESSENSE,  and 
others ;  above  all  on  this  subject,  the  work  of  B.  WEISS,  "  The 
Doctrinal  System  of  John,  investigated  in  its  Fundamental  Fea- 
tures" Berl.,  1862.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  most  of 


232  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

these  writers  understand  by  the  Johannean  theology,  the  the- 
ology of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  i.  e.,  of  the  Johannean  Christ. 
Comp.  also  DA  COSTA,  "  The  Apostle  John  and  his  Writings" 
Amst,  1854,  bl.  103,  sqq. 

Questions  for  consideration. — Importance  of  the  Johannean 
theology  beside  and  above  every  other. — The  key  thereto  in  the 
history  of  the  Apostle's  life  and  growth. — Closer  examination, 
comparison,  and  estimate  of  its  sources. — The  peculiar  character 
of  the  Johannean  theology,  as  compared  with  the  Petrine  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  Pauline  on  the  other. — History  of  the  course 
and  manner  of  its  special  treatment. — Why  has  the  treatment 
of  the  Johannean  doctrinal  system  been,  as  a  rule,  less  suc- 
cessful than  that  of  others  ? — In  its  examination,  according  to 
both  sources,  what  is  above  all  to  be  avoided,  and  what  regard- 
ed?— Truth  and  significance  of  the  uvolat  avis  sine  meta"  etc. 


FIKST  DIVISION, 

• 

THE  GOSPEL  AND  THE  EPISTLES. 

§46.^ 
The   World  out  of  Christ 

The  invisible  God,  according  to  the  testimony  of  John,  re- 
veals himself  to  the  world  only  in  and  through  the  Logos,  who 
from  the  beginning  was  partaker  of  his  nature  and  majesty,  the 
mediate  cause  of  creation,  the  light  and  the  life  of  men.  The 
world,  however,  misled  and  controlled  by  its  Prince,  loves  dark- 
ness rather  than  light,  and  is  on  this  account,  subject  to  the  do- 
minion of  sin  and  death.  Nevertheless,  there  are  those  of  a  bet- 
ter mind  who  are  inwardly  susceptible  of  the  highest  revelation 
of  God  in  the  Logos,  which  has  been  of  old,  especially  in  Israel, 
announced  and  prepared  for. 


The  World  out  of  Christ  233 

1.  In  our  survey  of  John's  teaching,  nothing  strikes   us  so 
immediately  as  the  loftiness  of  the  Apostle's  conception  of  God. 
God  is  to  him  the  True  One  (1  John  5,  20),  in  opposition  to  all 
vain  idols ;  Light  (1  John  1,  5),  the  sum  of  all  moral  perfection, 
which  again  concentrates  itself  in  Love  (1  John  4,  8.  16),  the 
fountain  head  of  everlasting  Life  (1  John  5,  20).     And  of  this 
God  he  speaks  as  the  Father  (1  John  2, 13 ;  3,  1),  without  doubt 
in  the  conciousness  of  his  filial  relation  to  Him,  but  at  the 
same  time,  with  evident  reference  to  the  mystery  of  the  Divine 
Being,  revealed  only  in  the  Son. 

2.  For  God  is  not  only  invisible  (1  John  1,  18),  but  also  is 
known  only  so  far  as  He  reveals  himself ;  and  the  center  of  this 
revelation  is  the  Son,  so  that  even  the  Theophany  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  in  reality  a  Christophany  (John  12,  41).      God's 
revelation  in  Christ  is  consequently  with  John  the  source  of  his 
knowledge  and  conception  of  God.     The  general  revelation  of 
God  in  nature  and  conscience,  of  which  Paul  speaks,   he  does 
not  mention  in  this  form ;  in  his  view,  all  that  can  be  known  of 
God  concentrates  itself  in  the  Logos. 

3.  The  Logos  is  identical  in  the  Johannean  system  with  the 
Son  (John  1,  14;  comp.  1,  18),  and  the  reason  why  he  desig- 
nates the  Son  exclusively  in  this  manner  is  to  be  sought  in  the 
peculiar  character  of  the  Gnosis  of  his  days.     The  Johannean 
idea  of  the  Logos  has  its  basis  substantially  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  its  form,  however,  is  to  be  explained  by  the  Alexandrine 
philosophy  of  his  time.      The  difference,  however,  between  his 
doctrine  of  the  Logos  and  that  of  Philo  is  much  too  great  to 
allow  the  former  to  be  regarded  simply  as  a  feeble  imitation  of 
the  latter.     "  The  antithesis  is  absolute  ;    for  that  which  is  to 
St.  John  a  truth  of  the  first  moment,  would  have  been  to  the 
Jew  of  Alexandria  a  horrible  blasphemy.     Between  Philo's  sys- 
tem and  the  Gospel,  the  same  difference  is  found  as  between  the 
Therapeutae,  taciturn  and  attenuated  hermits,  and  the  first  Chris- 
tians, conquerers  of  the  world  by  their  missions  and  their  mar- 
tyrdoms" (DE  PRESSENSE).     Rightly  regarded,  John  says  noth- 
ing of  the  Logos  but  what  is  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament 
testified  of  the  Son  of  God.     Only  he  says  this  in  another  man- 
ner ;  and  what  he  says,  can  be  supported  either  by  the  letter  or 
the  spirit  of  the  Lord's  utterances,  communicated  either  by  him 
or  by  the  other  Evangelists. 

15 


234  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

4.  The  Logos,  according  to  the  teaching  of  John,  is  partaker 
of  the  nature  and  majesty  of  God,   hypostatically  preexisting 
with  Him  in  the  beginning  of  all  things,   and  is  the  mediate 
cause  of  the  creation  of  all  existence  out  of  Himself  (John  1, 
3).     John  recognizes  no  eternal  matter  which  owes  to  the  Logos 
only  its  present  form ;  but  proclaims  an  eternal  Word  of  God 
whereby  all  things  have  been  brought  into  being,  and  in  which 
God  has,  so  to  speak,  expressed  himself.     All  light  and  life  in 
the  world  of  men,  whether  it  be  natural  or  moral,  has  proceeded 
from  Him  as  its  centre ;  and  the  whole  history  of  the  world 
before  Christ  may  be  regarded  as  foreshadowing  the  conflict  of 
this  light  against  the  darkness  in  humanity. 

5.  For  the  Kosmos,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  makes  to  the 
Logos  an  obstinate  resistance,   not  because  it  is  composed  of 
matter  (JU»/),  but  because  it  is  controlled  by  the  power  of  sin. 
It  lies  in  evil  (1  John  5,  19),  as  the  element  in  which  it  natu- 
rally moves.     At  its  head  stands,   as  the  enemy  of  God,  the 
devil,  a  personal  evil  spirit.     While  there  is  no  further  refer- 
ence either  to  angelology  or  demonology  in  the  teaching  of 
John,    Satanology,   on  the  other  hand,   occupies  an  essential 
place  in  the  Apostle's  doctrinal  system.     Satan  has  sinned  from 
the  beginning,  i.  e.,  as  long  as  there  has  been  sin  (1  John  3,  8, 
an  do^Tfc,  not  $v  &Qxft.)     He  prompted  the  first  fratricide  (1  John  3, 
12),  and  put  the  betrayal  into  the  heart  of  Judas  (John  13,  2). 
Thus  he  accomplishes  his  own  work,  and  has  his  own  children, 
as  opposed  to  the  children  of  God.     Men  have  evil  from  him, 
he  has  it  of  himself,  because  he  is  by  nature  evil.     How  he 
became  so,  John  does  not  say,  but  just  as  little  that  he  always 
was  so.     This  last  he  could  not  say,  without  at  once  contradict- 
ing the  idea  of  God  and  the  conception  of  the  world,  given 
both  by  the  Old  Testament  and  by  Jesus  himself. 

6.  Such  being  the  origin  of  sin,  it  displays  inevitably  the 
same  character  as  he  in  whom  its  power  is  concentrated.     The 
Johannean  doctrine  of  sin  is  less  developed  than  the  Pauline, 
but  is  not  less  true  and  profound.     Sin  is  to  him,  in  its  deepest 
ground,  lawlessness,   and  therefore  moral  wrong  (1  John  1,  9 ; 
3,  4) ;  sin  and  falsehood  are  with  John  as  inseparably  connected 
as  truth  and  holiness ;  and  while  life  is  not  conceivable  without 
love,   the  power  of  evil  manifests  itself  expressly  in  hatred 


The  World  out  of  Christ  235 

against  one's  brother  (1  John  3,  12),  and  in  the  love  of  a  world 
alienated  from  God  (1  John  2,  15-17).  In  consequence  of  this, 
the  sinner  remains  necessarily  in  darkness,  for  as  in  love  is  life, 
so  hatred  resembles  death.  The  conception  of  death,  also,  like 
that  of  the  world,  is  with  John  a  thoroughly  ethical  one,  indica- 
tive of  a  condition  of  spiritual  separation  from  God  which  nat- 
urally leads  to  physical  death,  and  attains  its  terrible  point  of 
culmination  in  an  absolutely  unpardonable  sin  (1  John  5,  16). 
So  great  is  the  power  of  sin,  that  even  in  the  Christian  it  can 
be  by  no  means  regarded  as  annihilated  (1  John  1,  8-10),  so  that 
he  stands  in  need  of  constantly  renewed  forgiveness  (1  John  2, 
2),  although  absolute  freedom  from  sinning  remains  the  require- 
ment and  the  ideal  of  every  Christian  life  (1  John  3,  4r-10). 

7.  This  universal  sinfulness  of  the  world  renders  necessary  a 
more  especial  revelation  of  the  truth  and  grace  of  God,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  general  one  of  the  Logos  before  his  incarnation.    This 
revelation  proceeds  entirely  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is  man- 
ifested in  a  lustre  unknown  before,  in  the  sending  and  giving 
up  of  the  Son  (1  John  4,  9.  10).     This,  however,  took  place  by 
no  means  without  preparation  being  made  for  his  coming ;  even 
before  his  incarnation  the  Logos  stood  in  a  more  especial  rela- 
tion to  Israel  as  his  own,  although  by  far  the  greater  part  reject- 
ed Him  (John  1,   11.  12).     The  prophetic  Scripture  had  pro- 
claimed Him  (John  2,  17  ;  19,  36.  37),  and  especially  the  labors 
of  the  Baptist  had  prepared  the  way  for  his  appearance  (John 
1,  6.  sqq).     Of  a  preparation  for  his  coming  in  the  Gentile 
world,  John  does  not  directly  speak ;  he  indicates,  however,  that 
all  light  even  there  has  proceeded  from  the  Logos  (John  1,  4. 
5.  9),  and  that  there  were  by  no  means  wanting  those  who  were 
accessible  to  the  light  and  life  which  proceeded  from  Him 
(John  11,  52). 

8.  For  according  to  the  teaching  of  John,  mankind,  quite 
apart  from  its  relation  to  the  historic  manifestation  of  Christ,  is 
divided  into  two  originally  different  classes.     On  the  one  hand 
are  children  of  the  devil  and  of  darkness,  for  whom  faith  on 
this  account  is  morally  impossible  (comp.  also  2  Thess.  3,  2), 
and  in  whose  unbelief  the  Apostle  adores  the  fulfillment  of  the 
secret  counsel  of  God  (John  12,  40).     On  the  other  hand,  how- 
ever, are  also  the  better  minded,  the  children   of  God   even 


236  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

beyond  the  confines  of  Judaism  (John  11,  52),  light-natures, 
who  hear  the  Gospel  because  they  are  of  God  (1  John  4,  6), 
and  feel  themselves  drawn  to  Him.  Here  the  law  of  affinity 
applies :  that  which  is  like  is  attracted,  that  which  is  unlike  is 
repelled.  Where,  consequently,  the  light  arises,  the  friend  of 
light  will  seek,  recognize,  and  prize  it;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  child  of  darkness  hates  and  resists  it.  That,  how- 
ever, this  essential  difference  stands  in  no  kind  of  connection 
with  moral  freedom  and  responsibility,  so  that  unbelief,  traced 
to  its  ultimate  source,  were  a  misfortune  rather  than  a  fault,  is 
by  John  nowhere  taught.  On  the  contrary,  he  evidently 
regards  this  unbelief  as  something  entirely  inexcusable,  and 
sees  in  the  highest  manifestation  of  the  truth  at  the  same  time  a 
manifestation  of  grace  and  life,  of  which  all  stand  in  need,  and 
which  also  is  designed  and  provided  for  all,  (John  1,  14-18 ;  1 
John  2,  2). 

Comp.  in  general  on  John's  idea  of  God,  the  treatise  of 
PAEEAU  in  Waarh.  in  L.,  1844.  On  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos, 
our  "  Christology  of  the  N.  T."  bl.  380  sqq.,  the  different  com- 
mentaries on  this  passage,  and  the  work  of  BUCHER,  "  The 
Apostle  Johfris  Doctrine  of  ike  Logos"  Schaffh.,  1856 ;  an  arti- 
cle by  WEIZ ACKER  in  the  Deutsche  Zeitschrift,  1862  ;  PHILIPPI, 
"  The  introduction  to  the  Gospel  of  John  "  and  especially,  as  oppo- 
sed to  the  interpretation  of  BEYSCHLA&,  the  important  mono- 
graph of  SCHULZE,  "  Of  the  Son  of  Man  and  of  the  Logos,  a  con- 
tribution to  Bibl.  Christol."  Gotha,  1867.  On  his  conception  of 
the  two  different  kinds  of  men,  as  opposed  to  the  Gnosticizing 
view  of  HILGENFELD  and  others,  WEISS,  "  The  Theology  of 
John,"  S.  128-138. 

Questions  for  consideration. — The  peculiarity  of  the  Johan- 
nean  conception  of  God. — Why  not  appeal  to  the  authority  of 
1  John  5,  7  ? — What  can  be  deduced  from  John's  teaching  as  to 
the  mutual  relation  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 
— Are  there  found,  elsewhere  also  in  the  New  Testament,  traces 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos  ? — The  sense  of  John  1,  1-18, 
compare  1  John  1,  1-3. — Connection  of  the  Johannean  doctrine 
of  the  Logos  with  the  canonical  and  apocryphal  writings  of  the 
Old  Testament  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Alexandrine  philoso- 


The  Appearing  of  Christ.  237 

phy  on  the  other. — The  idea  of  xoa/uog  in  relation  to  that  of  the 
Logos. — Was  John  a  Dualist? — What  is  taught  in  John  12, 
40  ? — How  is  John  13,  2,  to  be  read  ? — What  is  the  sense  of  1 
John  5,  16? — The  difference  between  the  Johannean  Anthro- 
pology and  that  of  the  later  Gnosticism. 

§  47. 
The  Appearing  of  Christ 

The  Logos  became  incarnate  in  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  true  and 
holy  man,  but,  at  the  same  time,  the  Son  of  God  in  the  super- 
natural sense  of  the  word,  the  Messiah  of  Israel,  the  Saviour  of 
the  world.  His  whole  manifestation  and  work,  both  before  and 
after  His  death,  is  a  continued  revelation  and  communication  of 
truth  and  life,  whereby  the  world  must  either  be  saved,  or 
even  now  and  here  be  righteously  condemned. 

1.  The  appearance  of  Christ  on  earth  is,  according  to  the  con- 
ception of  John,  by  no  means  the  merely  becoming  visible  of  a 
heavenly  being,  hitherto  invisible,  but  a  real  assumption  of 
human  nature  by  Him  who  had  not  hitherto  possessed  it,  and 
who  becomes  man  while  remaining  Logos.  Even  before  His 
incarnation,  this  Logos  was  the  Son  (John  1,  14,  18;  comp.  1 
John  4,  14),  whose  intimate  relation  to  the  Father  is  indicated 
by  the  Evangelist  in  a  figure  derived  from  his  own  experience 
(John  13,  23).  A's  such,  He  has  been  from  the  beginning  (1 
John  1,  1 ;  2,  14),  and  is  manifested  upon  His  coming  into  the 
world  (1  John  3,  5).  In  speaking  also  of  His  coming  in  the 
flesh  (1  John  4,  2.  3),  and  of  His  being  sent  by  the  Father  (1 
John  4,  14),  the  idea  of  a  personal  preexistence  underlies  the 
statement  So  closely  is  He  united  to  the  Father,  that  it  is 
sometimes  doubtful  of  which  John  is  speaking  (see,  for  exam- 
ple, 1  John  2,  29 ;  3,  2.  3).  In  the  single  epistle  in  which  the 
expression  Jesus  Christ  does  not  occur,  His  name  is  referred  to 
in  a  highly  significant  manner  (3  John  7) ;  and,  only  so  far  as 
God  is  known  in  Christ,  is  He,  as  the  True  One,  contrasted 
with  false  Gods  (1  John  5,  20).  In  vain  is  it  sought  to  weaken 


238  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

the  force  of  these  expressions  by  insisting  on  the  absence  of 
the  article  usually  found  before  the  name  of  God  (John  1,  1), 
and  which,  from  the  first,  is  given  to  the  Logos.  The  judg- 
ment of  the  ancient  Church,  which  conferred  upon  John,  as 
the  proclaimer  of  the  Divine  nature  of  the  Logos,  the  name  of 
The  Theologian*  has  been  perfectly  justified. 

2.  There  is  no  single  reason  for  understanding  the  well- 
known  formula,  " The  Word  was  made  flesh"  (John  1,  14),  of 
anything  else  than  the  assumption  of  the  whole  true  human 
nature  in  all  its  fullness.  Without  doubt,  John  also  maintains 
the  reality  of  the  human  body  of  the  Lord  (John  19,  28.  34. 
35) ;  but  with  equal  emphasis  does  he  ascribe  to  Him  a  human 
soul  (v^)  and  a  human  spirit  (nvevuot),  with  its  activities  and 
emotions  (John  13,  21,  nvev^a;  1  John  3,  16,  Vv;rl).  A  deny- 
ing that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  come  in  the  flesh  (this  is  some- 
thing more  than  to  appear  in  a  human  body)  is,  in  his  eye,  anti- 
christian  (1  John,  4,  2.  3 ;  2  John  7).  Not  in  a  merely  fleet- 
ing manner  has  the  Logos  revealed  himself;  He  has  tabernacled 
(taxfywaev)  for  a  while  in  a  truly  human  nature  (John  1,  14), 
and  His  body  was,  as  it  were,  the  temple  of  a  higher  being 
(2  John,  21 ;  comp.  Colos.  2,  9).  Of  a  miraculous  beginning  of 
life,  such  as  Matthew  and  Luke  relate,  no  express  mention, 
indeed,  is  made  by  John ;  but  it  is  tacitly  assumed  (postulated) 
by  him  in  his  whole  system  of  Christology,  and  once  is  appar- 
ently even  alluded  to  (John  1,  13),  although  but  indirectly. 
In  no  case,  however,  can  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  be 
regarded  as  the  annihilation,  but  rather  as  the  peculiar  revela- 
tion, of  his  superhuman  glory.  That  in  such  a  personality  the 
liability  to  temptation  (John  6,  15),  co-existing  with  the  entire 
absence  of  actual  sin,  is  conceivable,  is,  from  the  stand-point  of 
John,  self-evident.  He,  therefore,  emphatically  terms  the  Lord 
the  Holy  One,  the  Righteous  (1  John  2,  1.  20 ;  3,  3.  5),  and 
recognizes  in  Him  no  sin,  not  even  the  least  (1  John  3,  5).  But 
with  this  negative  result  he  is'not  content ;  on  the  contrary,  he 
sees  realized  in  Him  the  ideal  of  the  highest  moral  perfection 
possible  on  earth  (1  John  2,  6 ;  4,  17),  as  revealed,  above  all, 
in  a  love  which  is  combined  with  the  most  exalted  conscious- 
ness of  His  relation  to  the  Father  (John  13,  1-3). 

*  That  is,  one  who  makes  prominent  the  divinity  of  the  Logos.     See  the  title  of 
the  Apocalypse. — D. 


The  Appearing  of  Christ.  239 

3.  That  the  incarnate   Word  is  the  Messiah  of  Israel,   is 
brought  less  prominently  forward  in  John  than  in  Paul  or 
Peter.     No  wonder ;  the  wall  of  separation  between  Israel  and 
the  Gentile  world  had,  in  his  view,  already  fallen ;  consequently, 
also,  Old  Testament  expressions,  like  Zion,  city  of  God,  heav- 
enly Jerusalem,  seed  of  Abraham,  &c.,  do  not  occur  in  his  wri- 
tings.    Nevertheless,  he  also  presents  the  Lord  as  the  one  prom- 
ised to  the  fathers,  in  whom  the  Scriptures  are  fulfilled ;  yea, 
affirms  the  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  to  be  indispensa- 
ble to  salvation  (John  20,  31),   and  a  sign  of  the  being  begot- 
ten of  God  (1  John  5,  1).     With  evident  preference,  however, 
he  dwells  upon  the  universal  design  in  the  manifestation  of 
Christ,  which  had  already  been  indicated  by  the  Baptist,  (John 
1,  29),  and  had  been  so  emphatically  expressed  (John  6,  33)  by 
the  Lord  himself.     To  the  question,  what  then  is,  properly,  the 
great  aim  of  this  whole  manifestation  and  work  ?  with  his  Gos- 
pel and  Epistles  in  our  hands,  we  answer :  negatively,  the  taking 
away  of  sin  and  the  destroying  of  all  the  works  of  the  devil, 
(1  John  3,  5,  8) ;  positively,  the  revealing  of  the  truth  and  the 
giving  of  life  (John  1,  16-18 ;  1  John  4,  9.  10). 

4.  The  Father  is  interpreted  (^e^aaTo,  John  1,  18)  by  and 
in  the  Son  of  his  love.     Without  doubt,  John  is  here  thinking 
of  the  instruction  (1  John  1,  5)  of  the  Lord,  but,  above  all,  of 
the  whole  personality  of  Him  in  whom  the  Truth  and  the  Life 
shone  forth  in  unspeakable  lustre.     A  high  degree  of  signifi- 
cance, on  this  account,  have,  in  his  estimation,  the  miraculous 
deeds  of  the  Lord,  as  the  beamings  forth  of  His  glory  (John  2, 
11).     He  sees,  however,  this  glory  revealed  less  in  single  in- 
stances of  unwonted  glory  (the  Transfiguration,  the  institution 
of  the  Supper,  the  Ascension,  &c.),  which  he  rather  passes  over 
in  silence,  than  in  the  resistless  whole  of  the  historical  manifes- 
tation of  the  Christ  (John  1,  14 ;  1  John  1,  1-3). 

5.  While  the  sending  of  the  Son  of  God  into  the  world  had 
as  its  end  the  giving  of  the  true  life  (1  John  4,  9),  this  end  is 
especially  attained  by  the  death  of  the  Lord.     It  is  remarkable 
that,  while  John  otherwise  passes  over  the  Old  Testament  sac- 
rifices in  silence,  he  nevertheless  presents  the  death  of  the  Lord 
in  the  definite  character  of  a  sin-offering,   by  which  the  guilt 
of  sin  is  covered  (1  John  2,  2).     In  the  death  of  the  Lord  he 


240  Biblical  Theology  of  ike  New  Testament. 

sees  not  only  the  fulfillment  of  God's  counsel,  in  consequence 
of  which  the  true  Paschal  lamb  is  slain  on  Golgotha  (John  19, 
36) ;  not  merely  the  manifestation  of  the  highest  love  of  the 
Lord,  which  justly  calls  for  imitation  (1  John  3,  16) ;  but  the 
means  absolutely  necessary  for  the  expiation  of  the  sins  of  the 
world  (1  John  2,  2).  Not  merely  purification  from  the  domin- 
ion of  sin,  but  also  from  its  guilt  and  curse,  he  brings  into 
immediate  connection  with  Christ's  blood  (1  John  1,  7),  and 
comprehends  in  the  proclamation  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  the 
main  import  of  the  Gospel  message  (1  John  2,  12).  He  repre- 
sents the  Christ  as  come  (1  John  5,  6),  i.  e.,  as  revealed  in  his 
exalted  character,  not  merely  by  the  water  of  baptism,  but  also 
by  the  blood  of  the  Cross,  whereby  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is 
not  merely  symbolized  but  actually  realized.  At  the  same 
time,  according  to  his  profound  observation  (John  11,  52),  the  re- 
ceptive Gentiles  are  gathered  together  into  one  communion  with 
the  redeemed  of  Israel.  No  wonder  that  he  regards  a  death 
whereby  so  great  salvation  is  brought  in,  as  the  life  of  the  world. 
6.  This  saving  work  of  the  Lord  is  continued,  even  after 
His  death.  Through  the  Holy  Spirit  He  ceases  not  to  com- 
municate himself  to  believers  (1  John  2,  27 ;  3,  24),  but,  at  the 
same  time,  He  himself  remains  the  Paraclete  of  his  people  as 
often  as  they  have  sinned  anew  (John  2,  2).  Thus,  there  exists 
between  Him  and  them  a  constant  communion  of  life  and  of 
spirit ;  and  He  will  one  day  come  again  to  perfect  the  blessed- 
ness thus  begun.  Without  doubt,  the  expectations  of  John  in 
regard  to  the  future  are  much  less  highly  colored  than  those  of 
Peter  or  Paul.  The  Old  Testament  imagery  here,  in  a  great 
measure,  disappears ;  the  blessedness  of  the  future  is  already,  es- 
sentially, enjoyed  at  present.  This  is  a  consequence  of  the  ex- 
alted mystical  character  of  the  Johannean  theology,  but  we  have 
no  right  to  assert  that  his  expectations  are  essentially  different 
from  those  of  his  Christian  contemporaries.  He  also  speaks  of 
a  last  hour  (1  John  2,  18) — a  day  of  the  revelation  of  Christ 
and  of  judgment  (1  John  2,  28  ;  4,  17) — in  which  that  which  is 
secret  is  revealed,  and  the  end  of  redemption  is  attained.  He 
also  regards  the  Antichrist  as  the  forerunner  of  the  final  judg- 
ment, although — as  distinguished  from  Paul  (2  Thess.  2) — he 
discovers  the  signs  of  the  last  apostasy  not  so  much  in  lawless- 


The  Appearing  of  Christ.  241 

ness  as  in  the  denial  of  the  truth.  We  find  no  single  reason  for 
finding  here  nothing  but  "forms  derived  from  an  earlier  me- 
chanical view  of  the  world,  which  show  that  John  had  not  yet 
entirely  risen  above  his  former  Judaism  "  (SCHOLTEN). 

7.  The  result  of  this  work  of  the  incarnate  Logos  in  the 
midst  of  the  world  cannot  be  other  than  decisive  for  the  world 
itself.  The  appearing  of  Christ  brings  about  a  separation  (xQiai?) 
between  those  who  have  the  Son  and  those  who  have  Him  not 
(1  John  5,  11.  12)  ;  or  rather,  the  difference,  already  present  but 
unseen  is,  in  consequence  of  His  coming  and  His  work,  brought 
to  light.  Thus,  the  Christ  becomes  necessarily  a  Judge,  even 
where  He  would  be  a  Saviour ;  and  whosoever  rejects  Him  abides 
in  that  death  in  which  he  already  by  nature  was,  and  from 
which  he  can  escape  only  in  communion  with  Christ  (1  John  3, 
14).  According  to  John,  it  is  absolutely  impossible  not  to 
have  the  Son  and  yet  to  have  the  Father  (1  John  2,  23 ;  2  John 
vs.  9) ;  to  be  unchristian,  and  yet  to  be  religious.  And  just  as 
little  does  he  open  any  prospect  in  the  future  to  the  obstinate 
rejecter  of  Christ;  on  the  contrary,  he  anticipates  a  very- 
different  issue  of  the  world's  history  from  that  which  absolute 
Monism  pictures  to  itself.  It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  he 
looked  for  a  conversion  of  Antichrist:  it  is  rather  his  over- 
throw and  destruction  which  he  must  regard  as  conceivable 
(comp.  1  John  2,  15-17).  In  this  domain,  also,  the  Apocalypse 
will  afford  us  suggestions  which  we  shall  seek  in  vain  in  the 
Grospel  and  Epistles ;  but  those  already  examined  prove  suffi- 
ciently that  he  finds  no  less  difference  essentially  between  belief 
and  unbelief  than  between  light  and  darkness.  With  what  holy 
indignation  he  is  filled  against  those  who  reject  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  is,  at  least  once,  emphatically  expressed  (2  John  7,  9-11) ; 
although,  even  in  speaking  of  the  unbelief  of  his  contempora- 
ries, next  to  the  tone  of  deep  indignation,  that  of  great  melan- 
choly and  intense  grief  makes  itself  heard  (John  1,  11.  12  ;  12, 
37-43).  Where,  however,  he  is  called  to  speak  of  the  blessed- 
ness connected  with  life  in  Christ,  he  speaks  of  nothing  lower 
than  u  grace  for  grace  "  (John  1,  16). 

Compare,  on  the  true  humanity  of  the  Johannean  Christ, 
BEYSCHLAG,  I  c.,  S.  141  ff.  On  the  Divine  nature  in  Him, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  our  Apostle,  (JESS.,  "  The  Doc- 


242  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

trine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,"  Basel,  1856,  S.  99-115.  On  the 
Johannean  Soteriology,  LECHLER,  I  c.,  S.  219  ff.  On  the  Jo- 
hannean  Christ,  our  "  Apologetical  Prelections"  IV;  [LiDDON's 
Bampton  Lecture,  on  the  Divinity  of  Christ.~\ 

Questions  for  consideration. — What  is  the  sense  of  1  John  5, 
20  ? — Why  is  John  silent  as  to  the  Lord's  miraculous  birth  ? — 
Is  there  ground  for  the  assertion  that  the  Johannean  Christol- 
ogy  contains  Docetic  elements? — What  Divine  characteristics 
appear  especially  in  the  Johannean  image  of  Christ? — What 
peculiarities  are  displayed  in  the  Johannean  Soteriology  as  com- 
pared with  the  Pauline  ? — What  connection  does  the  Apostle 
observe  between  the  work  of  the  exalted  Christ  and  that  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  (John  7,  39)  ? — The  Johannean  description  of  Anti- 
christ— The  singleness  of  John's  love. — The  brief  summary  of 
the  Gospel  of  John,  in  chap.  1,  16. 

§  48. 
The  Life  in  Christ 

Where  the  highest  revelation  of  God  in  the  incarnate  Word 
is  believingly  contemplated,  and  thus  is  truly  acknowledged, 
this  faith  becomes  the  source  of  a  life  in  communion  with 
Christ,  and,  through  Him,  in  filial  relationship  towards  God, 
which  manifests  itself  by  a  walk  in  light  and  love,  and  clearly 
distinguishes  all  who  possess  it  from  the  world,  and  inwardly 
unites  them  to  each  other.  Through  this,  its  spiritual  princi- 
ple of  life,  the  preservation  and  victory  of  the  Church  of  the 
Lord  is  assured ;  its  glory  and  blessedness,  however,  are  fully 
revealed  only  in  the  day  of  the  coming  of  Christ. 

1.  Although  in  the  Johannean  doctrinal  system  the  demand 
for  faith  is  not  so  constantly  brought  into  the  foreground  as  in 
that  of  Paul,  yet  faith  in  Christ  is  here  also  spoken  of  as  the 
chief  commandment  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  great  means  for 
overcoming  the  world  (1  John  3,  23 ;  5,  4-5).  It  consists  in 
the  sincere  acknowledgment  of  Him  in  His  whole  unique  dig- 
nity (mffTstew  o™,  x.  T.  I.,  John  20,  31)  and  is  the  sign  of  a 


The  Life  in  Christ.  243 

genuine  birth  from  God  (1  John  5,  1),  whose  testimony  it  un- 
hesitatingly accepts  (1  John  5,  9).  As,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  it  is  preceded  by  knowledge  (1  John  4,  16),  so,  in  turn,  it 
leads  to  a  constantly  increasing  knowledge  of  spiritual  things, 
which  again  contributes  to  an  ever  stronger  faith  (1  John  5, 13). 
Believing  and  knowing  stand,  therefore,  in  John  so  little  op- 
posed to  each  other,  that  the  upright  believer  is,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  true  Gnosticus.  "  The  true  faith  is  in  John  a 
recognizing,  experiencing  faith  ;  the  true  knowledge  a  believing 
knowledge  "  (LucKE).  Accordingly  the  Christian  has  an  inward 
assurance  of  the  truth  and  life  in  Christ,  which  does  not  admit 
of  any,  the  least,  doubt,  and  even  seeks  no  further  support  be- 
yond itself  (1  John  5,  10-12). 

2.  The  believing  contemplation  and  recognition  of  Christ  is 
the  source  of  a  life  which  is  the  embodiment  of  the  highest  pos- 
sible   blessedness.     It    exists   in    consequence   of    an   inward 
change  as  an  abiding  inner  principle  (1  John  3,  14,  15)  so  that 
it  is  enjoyed  even  on  this  side  the  grave.     But,  at  the  same 
time,  this  gift  is  a  promise  which  awaits  its  complete  fulfillment 
(1  John  2,  25),  and  an  ideal  for  the  future  of  the  believer  (John 
20,  31).     This  life  is  found  exclusively  in  personal  communion 
with  Christ,  so  that  to  have  Christ  and  to  have  life  signify 
fundamentally  the  same  thing  (1  John  5,  12).     At  the  same 
time,  it  brings  the  Christian  into  a  personal  relationship  towards 
God,  the  blessedness  of  which  surpasses  every  other  kind  of 
happiness  (1  John  3,  1).     With  John,  also,  sonship  with  God  is 
the  highest  privilege  of  the  believer,  though  between  his  con- 
ception of  it  and  that  of  Paul  (§  40,  7),  the  distinction  must  not 
be  overlooked  that  John  regards  this  privilege  almost  exclu- 
sively from  its  ethical  side,  and  especially  directs  the  eye  to 
the  inner  kinship  of  spirit  between  the  children  and  the  Father. 
With  both  John  and  Paul,  perfect  confidence  before  God  is  the 
fruit  of  this  filial  relationship ;  and  the  assurance  of  the  answer- 
ing of  prayer  even  for  others  also,  is,  from  this  stand-point, 
fully  warranted  (1  John  3,  22 ;  4,  17,  18 ;  5,  14,  15 ;  comp. 
Kom.  8,  15,  16;  Gal.  4,  6). 

3.  The  new  life  of  the  children  of  God  reveals  itself  by  a 
walking  in  the  light  and  in  love,  without  which  personal  com- 
munion between  man  and  the  spotlessly  Holy  One  is  out  of  the 


244  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

question  (1  John  1,  5-7).  While  it  is,  however,  morally  incon- 
ceivable that  one  should  know  God  and  not  keep  his  com- 
mandments, these  commandments  for  his  people  are  not  griev- 
ous (1  John  2,  3-11 ;  comp.  1  John  5,  3.)  It  is  remarkable  how 
John,  who  elsewhere  is  raised  so  high  above  the  legal  stand- 
point, lays  such  evident  stress  upon  the  doctrine  and  the 
commandment  of  Christ ;  assuredly,  according  to  his  view,  also, 
the  new  life  requires  a  constant  rule  and  bond.  To  love 
towards  God  and  Christ  he  never  directly  exhorts ;  he  assumes 
that  it  is,  in  principle,  present  in  believers,  but  urges  them  so 
much  the  more  strongly,  precisely  on  this  account,  to  mani- 
fest it  in  love  towards  the  brethren,  since  the  one  must  stand 
or  fall  with  the  other  (1  John  4,  20.  21).  The  love  of  the 
brethren — once  by  the  Lord  termed  a  new  commandment 
(John  13,  34) — he,  at  the  close  of  the  first  Christian  century, 
can  speak  of  as  an  old  one  (1  John  2,  7) ;  but  with  ever  increas- 
ing power  he  insists  on  its  being  cherished  by  believers,  after 
their  Lord's  own  example  (1  John  3,  16-18). 

4.  This  active  love  is  identical  with  personal  sanctification — 
a  sanctification  which  is  nothing  less  than  the  final  aim  of  the 
whole  work  of  redemption  (1  John  2,  1).     It  displays  itself  in 
a  manful  struggle  against  evil,  in  the  renouncing  of  the  vain 
love  of  the  world  (1  John  2,  14-16),  and  in  a  willing  fulfillment 
of  all  that  is  well-pleasing  to  God  (1  John  3,  22).     With  this 
state  of  mind,  boldness  before  God  stands  in  such  immediate 
connection  that  it  is  impossible  to  possess  the  latter  where  the 
former  is  wanting,  and  there  can  certainly  be  no  answer  to 
prayer  while  the  conscience  inwardly  condemns  (1  John  3,  20. 
21).     One  must  have  read  John  in  a  strange  way  to  be  able  to 
assert  that  a  conception  in  which  so  much  of  moral  earnestness 
and  tenderness  of  conscience  is  expressed,  could,  even  in  any 
degree,   conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  free  and  unconditional 
grace  (comp.  1  John  1,  7 ;  2,  1.  2). 

5.  Those  who  thus  walk  in  light  and  love  stand  by  no  means 
alone,  but,  on  the  contrary,  enter  thereby,  into  the  closest  rela- 
tionship towards  each  other.     The  exhibition  of  the  Christian 
life  as  a  life  of  the  most  intimate  communion,  first  of  all  with 
Christ,  but  then,  also,  in  Him  with  God  and  with  fellow-believers, 
is  genuinely  Johannean  (1  John  1,  3).     His  whole  First  Epistle 


Life  in  Christ.  245 

is  a  manifest  echo  of  the  Master's  parting  prayer  (John  17,  20. 
21).  To  him,  Christians  are  as  such,  brethren;  and  if  he 
addresses  them  as  children,  this  has  its  ground  in  his  age  and 
in  his  relation  to  them.  Only  on  a  single  occasion  (3  John  6. 
9.  10)  does  he  speak  of  the  Church  (txxlrjata)  •  elsewhere  ordin- 
arily of  the  mutual  fellowship  (xowuvia)  of  believers  one  with 
another,  of  which  the  peculiar  mark  is  the  pure  confession  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son.  Those  who  fall  away  from  this  com- 
munion show  thereby  that  they  never  truly  belonged  to  it 
(1  John  2,  19).  Those  who  belong  to  it  present  a  compact 
unity  to  the  world,  which  hates  and  misjudges  them  (John  3, 
1.  10),  but  will  not  easily  seduce  them,  because  they  possess  in 
the  Spirit  of  Truth,  which  is  given  to  them,  an  infallible  test 
by  which  to  distinguish  truth  from  error  (1  John  2,  20.  27).  It 
is  thus  absolutely  impossible  that  the  true  believer  should  fall 
for  ever  under  the  power  of  sin  (1  John  3,  9).  The  truth 
remains  with  the  Church  for  evermore ;  because  the  Spirit  of 
truth  (2  John  2)  who  is  so  much  more  powerful  than  the  spirit 
of  this  world  is  given  to  it  (1  John  4,  4). 

6.  The  more  perfect  the  Christian  communion,  the  more  full 
also  is  the  joy  (1  John  1,  4).  While  constant  warning  against 
sin  and  error  is  necessary  (2  John  8),  the  abiding  in  that  which 
they  have  heard  of  Christ  has  the  sure  promise  of  a  happiness 
which  cannot  be  lost  (1  John  2,  24.  25).  In  principle  already 
a  sharer  in  that  which  is  best,  the  Christian  has  yet  to  expect 
something  higher.  That  in  the  Johannean  doctrinal  system 
there  is  nowhere  a  place  for  Christian  hope  (KosTLiN),  is  an 
assertion  which  is  in  itself  improbable,  and  is,  moreover,  con- 
tradicted in  more  than  one  passage  in  his  First  Epistle.  He, 
like  his  fellow-disciples,  sees  the  darkness  (1  John  2,  8),  yea, 
the  whole  world  (1  John  2,  17),  pass  away,  because  he  lives  in 
the  expectation  of  the  day  of  the  coming  of  Christ  The 
many  Antichrists  whom  he  beholds  are  to  him  precursors  of 
one,  and,  at  the  same  time,  heralds  of  the  last  hour  (1  John  2, 
18).  While,  then,  all  passes  away,  the  Christian  abides  eter- 
nally (1  John  2,  17),  has  full  confidence  (1  John  2,  28 ;  4,  17), 
beholds  God  and  becomes  thus  like  Him  (oftows),  (1  John  3,  2), 
yet  always  in  such  a  way  that  the  personal  distinction  between 
the  Creator  and  the  creature  is  preserved.  The  life  in  Christ, 


246  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

commenced  in  the  believing  view  of  the  Logos  (John  1,  14), 
ends  in  the  future  beholding  of  the  Father,  and  thus  in  the  com- 
pletion of  that  communion  with  God  already  begun  on  earth. 
As  to  that  which  the  Christian  has  to  look  for  between  death 
and  the  coming  of  the  Lord,  John  is  silent. 

7.  A  high  value  attaches  itself  to  the  Johannean  doctrines 
as  we  have  thus  far  surveyed  them,  as  being,  even  when  com- 
pared with  the  greater  wealth  of  the  Pauline  ideas,  the  most 
profound  in  the  whole  New  Testament,  the  crown  of  the  Apos- 
tolic testimony,  and  the  manifest  echo  of  the  Lord's  own  words. 
They  are  of  special  importance  in  our  time,  as  opposed  to  the 
arbitrary  separation  between  religion  and  Christianity,  ideas 
and  facts,  doctrines  and  duties.  Christologically,  no  doctrinal 
system  surpasses  that  of  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  John ;  and 
what  is  wanting  therein  in  regard  to  eschatology  is  satisfacto- 
rily complemented  by  the  Apocalypse. 

Comp.  the  treatise  of  OEHLER,  "Faith  and  Regeneration,  in 
their  unity  according  to  the  Johannean  Theology"  in  the  Tub. 
Theol.  Quartalschr.  1838,  S.  599-622 ;  LUTTERBECK,  I  c.,  II. 
S.  290.  The  Commentaries  of  DUSTERDIECK,  and  also  of 
BRAUNE,  in  Lange's  series.  [GRAHAM,  The  Spirit  of  Love :  a 
practical  and  exegetical  commentary  on  the  First  Epistle  of 
John,  London,  1857 ;  CANDLISH,  Exposition  of  the  First  Epistle 
ofJohn.~] 

Questions  for  consideration. — What  is  the  connection,  accord- 
ing to  John,  between  faith  and  the  being  born  of  God  (t*  rov 
6eov)  ? — In  what  manner  does  he  connect  faith  and  knowledge  ? 
— What  is,  according  to  John,  the  last  and  firmest  ground  of 
faith  ? — In  what  relation  does  he  place  our  love  to  God  to  the 
love  of  God  toward  us  (1  John  4,  19)  ? — What  similarity  and 
what  difference  is  there  between  his  doctrine  of  the  fellowship 
of  believers  and  that  of  Paul  ? — On  what  ground  does  he  look 
for  the  preservation  and  victory  of  the  kingdom  of  God? — 
What  is  the  sense  and  force  of  1  John  3,  1-3  ? 


Diversity  and  Harmony.  247 

SECOND  DIVISION. 

THE  APOCALYPSE. 

§49. 
Diversity  and  Harmony. 

The  difference  between  the  doctrinal  system  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse and  that  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles  is,  without  doubt, 
important,  but  yet  of  such  a  kind  as  to  be  on  the  one  hand  easily 
accounted  for,  and  on  the  other  hand  greatly  outweighed  by 
many  striking  agreements.  For  a  just  appreciation  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Apocalypse,  it  is  not  necessary  to  bring  into  the 
foreground  a  definite  view  of  the  signification  and  design  of 
the  prophetic  visions  there  recorded.  Even  with  the  greatest 
difference  as  to  the  interpretation  and  value  of  this  book  of 
the  future,  it  can  be  shown,  in  spite  of  much  opposition, 
that  with  all  that  it  contains  of  a  peculiar  or  enigmatical  char- 
ter, it  reflects  as  to  its  main  contents  in  a  louder  echo  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  and  so  far  forms  a  worthy 
close  to  the  canon  of  the  New  Testament. 

1.  It  is  not  easy  to  form  a  just  estimate  of  the  Apocalypse. 
Like  other  books  of  the  New  Testament,   this  also  has  passed 
through  a  period  of  over-estimation,  and  then  of  neglect,  which 
has  been  succeeded  in  recent  times  by  a  truer  appreciation.    We 
thankfully  recognize  the  light  which  from  different  sides,  has 
been  shed  on  this  mysterious  region,  but  at  the  same  time  re- 
member that  we  are  not  called  in  this  place  to  seek  the  key  to 
the  enigma  of  the  Apocalypse,  but  only  to  dev elope  the  doc- 
trinal system  of  the  book. 

2.  The  first  impression  which  the  Apocalypse  makes,  as  com- 
pared with  the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles  of  John,  is  certainly 
that  of  the  widest  diversity.     John  the  Evangelist  stands  in 
many  respects  nearer  to  Peter  and  Paul  than  to  the  writer  of  the 
Apocalypse.     The  series  of  contrasts  between  the  John  of  the 
Apocalypse  and  the  John   of  the  Gospel,  may  be  continued 


248  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

almost  without  end.  Between  the  contents  of  the  two  writings, 
the  difference  is  not  less  than  between  their  language  and  style. 
They  equally  differ  in  their  relation  to  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament.  We  cannot,  therefore,  be  surprised  that  the 
composition  of  these  two  writings  by  the  same  person  is  doubt- 
ed even  by  those  who  do  not  merit  the  reproach  of  adopting  an 
arbitrary  criticism. 

3.  Yet  it  is  not  too  much  to  maintain,  as  has  been  repeatedly 
done  in  recent  times,  that  there  is  scarcely  a  single  book  of  the 
New  Testament  for  the  authenticity  of  which  stronger  proofs  can 
be  adduced  than  for  that  of  the  Apocalypse.     Even  the  most 
negative  school  has  defended  its  Johannean  origin.     In  spite  of 
sharp  contrasts  in  regard  to  contents,  style,  and  mode  of  thought 
between  the  two  writings,  there  are  not  wanting  remarkable  in- 
stances of  agreement ;  confirming  both  the  identity  of  author- 
ship, and  the  time  of  composition  of  the  Apocalypse  as  not  be- 
fore but  after  that  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistles  (§  45.  3).     If 
we  consider  that  in  the  one  the  calm  historian  (ev  y<rf),  in  the 
other  the  ecstatic  prophet  (&v  nvetfiau)  is  before  us ;  that  there 
the  spontaneity,  here  the  receptivity  of  the  Apostle  is  especially 
prominent ;  that  the  revelation  granted  him  from  above  attached 
itself  to  that  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  the  main  lines  of 
thought,  begun  in  Gospel  or  Epistle,  are  carried  through  to  the 
Apocalypse  (not  the  reverse),  it  is  manifest  that  here  also  the 
opposition  is  to  be  found  upon  the  surface,  the  harmony  in  the 
depths. 

4.  In  the   Apocalypse,  also,   the  person  of  the  Lord,   the 
Christ  as  He  comes  in  His  kingdom,  is  the  center  of  the  whole. 
Not  less  than  Gospel  and  Epistle  is  homage  rendered  to  His 
true  humanity.     He  is  of  Judah  and  David  (Rev.  5,  5  ;  22,  16)  ; 
the  child  of  the  Old  Testament  Church  (Rev.  12,  1-5)  ;  was 
truly  dead,  and  is  yet  seen  in  heaven  with  the  tokens  of  His 
having  been  slain  (Rev.  1,  18  ;  5,  6).     But  He  is  at  the  same 
time  partaker  of  the  natnre  and  majesty  of  God,  and  ascribes 
to  himself  Divine  names  and  attributes  (Rev.  1,  11.  18 ;  2,  13. 
23).     It  is  true  He  has  received  everything  of  the  Father  (Rev. 
1,  1 ;  2,  28 ;  3,  12),  and  into  the  glorification  of  this  Father  is 
resolved  also  the  homage  presented  to  him  (Rev.  5,  '13.  14). 
But  yet  directly  to  Himself  is  the  incense  of  adoration  offered 
(Rev.  5,  8) ;  sovereignly  does  He  dispose  of  the  angels  as  Lord 


Diversity  and  Harmony.  249 

and  Euler  (Kev.  22, 16),  and  as  The  Word  of  God  (Rev.  19, 13), 

He  bears  a  name,  the  deep  significance  of  which  is  already  known 
to  us  from  the  fourth  Gospel  In  the  presence  of  such  facts 
some  amount  of  courage  is  necessary  to  hold  (with  BAUR)  that 
the  Christology  of  the  Apocalypse  does  not  rise  essentially  above 
the  Ebionite  standpoint.  The  impartial  student  will  agree  with 
one  of  the  critics  of  the  most  advanced  school  (EEUSS)  :  u  We 
must  admit  without  hesitation,  that  Christ  in  the  Apocalypse  is 
exalted  to  the  level  of  God." 

5.  It  is  nevertheless  not  so  much  in  relation  to  the  Father  as  to 
his  Church,  that  the  Lord  is  here  presented,  and  presented  es- 
pecially in  His  royal  character  and  dignity.   It  is  true,  He  appears 
here  also  as  the  witness  of  the  truth  (Rev.  1,  5),  whose  command- 
ments challenge  obedience  (Rev.  22, 14),  and  His  atoning  work  is 
referred  to  in  a  spirit  like  that  in  Epistle  and  Gospel  (Rev.  1, 
5 ;  5,  8.  9  ;  7,  14).     Not  as  the  Lion,  but  above  all  as  the  Lamb 
&gviov\  is  the  homage  of  heaven  rendered  to  Him  ;  and  even 
where  He  is  angry  He  does  not  deny  this  his  character  (Rev. 
6,  16).     He  reveals  himself  as  the  priest-king  (Rev.   1,  9-20), 
who   unceasingly  loves  his  Church  (Rev.  1,  5),  and  watches 
over  its  highest  concerns  (Rev.   3,   19.  20).     But  in  this  his 
kingly  character,  He  is  clothed,  not  merely  with  the  highest 
honor,  but  also  with  the  most  unlimited  omnipotence  (Rev.  ii 
and  iii),  and  exercises  this  not  only  in  relation  to  the  Church, 
but  also  in  relation  to  the  world  which  He  subdues  and  creates 
anew  according  to  the  counsel  of  the  Father,  of  which  the  book 
is  placed  in  his  hands  (Rev.  5,  1-7). 

6.  In  the  idea  of  God  as  presented  in  the  Apocalypse,  this 
peculiarity  is  to  be  observed,  that  while  in  the  Gospel  and  the 
Epistles  the  moral  attributes  of  the  Divine  nature  are  brought 
into  greater  prominence,  here  it  is  the  natural  attributes  which 
are  brought  into  the  foreground ;   a  natural  consequence  as 
well  of  the  contents  of  the  book  as  of  its  manifest  connec- 
tion with  the  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament     God's  omnipo- 
tence, infinity  and  immutability,  are  here  especially  exhib- 
ited.    He  is  the  God  of  the  holy  prophets,  of  the  Apostles 
of  the  Lamb,  and  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  (Rev.  7,  5  ;  22, 
16) ;  the  God  who  makes  all  things  new  (Rev.  21, 5  ;  comp.  Is. 
65,  17),  and  establishes  his  dwelling  among  men  (Rev.  21,  3 ; 
comp.  Ez.  36).     Of  seven  spirits  before  His  throne,  mention  is 

16 


250  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

also  made  (Eev.  4,  5),  as  symbolical  of  the  manifold  character 
of  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  while  even  in  the  beginning  of 
the  Apocalypse  a  trace  of  the  distinction  in  the  Trinity  appears 
(Eev.  1,  4-6),  without,  however,  being  made  with  dogmatic 
sharpness,  any  more  than  in  the  Gospel  and  Epistles. 

7.  As  regards  the  creature,  the  Apocalypse  is  as  rich  in  point 
of  angelology   (see,  for  example,   Eev.  16,  5),  as  Gospel  and 
Epistle  are  poor  in  this  respect ;  at  the  same  time,  the  render- 
ing of  religious  homage  to  these  higher  beings  is  here  not  less 
strongly  deprecated  than  by  the  Apostle  Paul  himself  (Eev.  22, 
8,  9  ;  comp.  Col.  2, 18).     The  anthropology,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  entirely  the  same.     The  world  lies  in  wickedness,  and  ripens 
for  the  judgment  of  God  ;  and  this  too,  in  consequence  of  Sa- 
tanic influence  (Eev.  12,  9.  10).      The  grace  proclaimed  here 
Eev.  1,  4 ;  22,  21),  as  in  the  Gospel  (John  1,  14.  16.  17),  is  that 
which  alone  saves ;  and  the  faith,  which  manifests  itself  in  the 
keeping  of  the  commandments,  is  the  first  duty  of  the  sinner 
(Eev.  14,  12 ;  22, 17  ;  l<*u$M™  duoe&v).     Works  do  not  precede, 
but  follow  believing  (Eev.  14,  13) ;  and  perseverance,  even  in 
the  midst  of  the  severest  trials,  is  the  proper  fruit  of  faith  (Eev. 
13, 10).     The  blessedness  thus  experienced  is  here,  as  in  the 
fourth  Gospel,  presented  under  the  image  of  satisfaction  and  re- 
freshment (Eev.  7,  17 ;  21,  6),  attainable  for  all  without  excep- 
tion ;  and  those  who  partake  of  it  are  spoken  of  as  redeemed 
unto  God  out  of  all  nations  (Eev.  7,  9).     We  find  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse not  even  the  slightest  polemic  against  the  Pauline  catho- 
licity, and  just  as  little  the  giving  of  direct  or  indirect  encour- 
agement to  Jewish   particularism  (comp.   Eev.    14,  6 ;  22,  2). 
The  preeminence  which  is  here,  in  single  passages,  conceded  to 
Israel,  is  on  the  one  hand  only  a  relative  preeminence,  and  on 
the  other  entirely  in  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  (John  4,  22),  and  of 
the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  (Eom.  9,  1-5  ;  Gal.  6, 16). 

8.  The  eschatology  of  the  Apocalypse  is  that  part  of  its  doc- 
trinal system,  which  is  by  far  the  most  fully  developed.     It  is 
true  there  is  here  by  no  means  wanting  the  idea  of  a  prepara- 
tory and  spiritual  coming  of  the  Lord  (Eev.  2,  5 ;  3,  20) ;  but 
yet  the  visible  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  is  far  more 
distinctly  proclaimed  (Eev.  1,  7  ;  14,  14  sqq.).      While  the  de- 
parted even  now  consciously  live  (Eev.  6,  9.  10),  and  while  the 
blessedness  of  the  God-fearing  dead  is  already  begun,  the  final 


Diversity  and  Harmony.  25 1 

decision  for  the  seen  and  unseen  world  is  made  only  at  the 
glorious  coming  of  the  Lord  It  is  not  easy  accurately  to  de- 
lineate the  prospect  here  opened  before  us :  "  The  figurative 
character  of  the  Revelation  renders  it  frequently  impossible  to 
arrange  with  dogmatic  precision,  underlying  thoughts"  (BAUR). 
But  thus  much  at  least  is  certain,  that  John  regards  this  coming 
as  nigh  at  hand  (Rev.  3, 11 ;  22, 10),  as  in  point  of  time  undeter- 
minable (Rev.  3,  3 ;  16,  15),  as  glorious  and  decisive  (Rev.  19,  11 
-16).  Its  preludes  are  with  him  essentially  the  same  as  those 
mentioned  by  the  Lord  in  his  eschatological  address  in  Matt.  24, 
and  are  presented  under  the  figures  of  three  successions  of  seals, 
trumpets,  and  vials  of  wrath — symbols  of  the  judicial  visit- 
ations of  God  ever  increasing,  frequently  interrupted  only  by 
short  intervals,  but  which  are  constantly  responded  to  by  an  ob- 
durate impenitence  on  the  part  of  man.  They  prepare  the  way 
for  the  coming  Antichrist  (Rev.  13,  1 ;  com  p.  Dan.  7,  8),  the 
Beast,  with  the  two  confederates,  Satan  and  false  prophecy ;  at 
the  same  time  he  is  supported  by  the  hostile  world-power,  which 
is  presented  under  the  image  of  an  impure  woman  sitting  upon 
the  beast  The  conflict  of  this  world-power  against  the  kingdom 
of  God  hastens  the  approaching  decision,  the  fall  of  Babylon, 
the  millennial  kingdom,  and  the  first  resurrection  (Rev.  20,  1- 
6).  After  this  comes  the  last  conflict  against  the  repressed  but 
by  no  means  annihilated  world-power,  which  is  followed  by  the 
resurrection  of  all  the  dead,  the  general  judgment  (Rev.  20, 
7-15),  and  the  final  renewing  of  heaven  and  earth  (Chaps.  21 
and  22),  after  which  even  the  eye  of  a  John  sees  nothing  save 
an  endless  blessedness  of  God's  people,  and  an  endless  punish- 
ment of  the  enemies  of  his  kingdom  (Rev.  14,  11 :  20,  10). 
Manifestly,  the  prophet  looks  for  an  enduring  period  of  pros- 
perity and  of  peace  for  the  long-oppressed  kingdom  of  God,  to 
be  interrupted  only  once  by  a  final  conflict,  and  to  shine  forth 
after  its  last  perfect  triumph  in  undimmed  brightness  in  heaven 
and  earth.  But  even  here  we  meet  with  glimpses  of  a  future, 
of  which  a  distant  prospect  has  been  before  opened  to  us  (Luke 
14,  14 ;  1  Thess.  4,  16 ;  1  Cor.  15,  23),  but  which  has  been 
hitherto  much  less  fully  delineated. 

9.  An  impartial  survey  of  the  doctrinal  system  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse shows,  on  the  one  hand,  how  many  earlier  or  later  objec- 
tions to  the  book  rest  on  misunderstanding  or  prejudice,  and  on 


252  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

the  other  hand,  how  the  prospect  here  opened  by  no  means 
stands  alone  in  Holy  Scripture,  but  is,  as  it  were,  the  crown 
of  that  stem  whose  foliage  is  spread  before  our  eyes  in  the 
prophetic  and  Apostolic  writings  of  the  Old  and  the  ISTew  Tes- 
tament As  streams  lose  themselves  in  the  ocean,  so  all  the  ex- 
pectations of  blessedness  opened  to  us  in  Scripture  unite  in  the 
Apocalyptic  perspective;  and  it  is  to  the  latest  book  of  the 
New  Testament  that  the  investigation  as  to  the  higher  unity 
of  the  different  doctrinal  systems  attaches  itself  easily,  and,  as 
it  were,  without  any  effort. 

Compare,  on  the  Apocalypse  in  general,  the  "  Introduction  "  of 
LUCKE  ;  the  article  of  EBRARD,  in  HERZOG'S  R.  E.  VI. ;  and 
the  Commentaries,  especially  LANGE,  (Introd.  to  Commentary  on 
John),  and  the  Dissertation  of  W.  H.  KRIJT,  cum  de  Apocal.  libro, 
turn  de  septem  quce  illo  continenter  Epistolis,  Traj.  1861.  On 
the  Chris tology  and  Eschatology  of  this  book,  our  "  Christol.  of 
the  N.  T."  bl.  416-466,  where  all  here  merely  touched  upon  is 
more  fully  developed.  On  Chiliasm,  more  especially  the  Arti- 
cle of  SEMISCH  in  HERZOG'S  R  E.,  and  the  work  of  EINCK 
(against  HENESTENBERG),  "  The  Scriptural  Basis  of  the  Doctrine 
of  a  Thousand  Years'  Kingdom"  Elberf.  1866. 

Questions  for  consideration. — Extent  of  the  doctrinal  difference 
between  Gospel  and  Apocalypse. — Is  there  in  reality  a  higher 
unity  ? — The  Apocalyptic  book  the  complement  and  develop- 
ment, by  no  means  the  antipode  of  John's  Gospel. — The  tes- 
timonies of  the  exalted  Christ  concerning  himself  in  the  Apoc- 
alypse.— Criticism  of  the  Tubingen  view  as  to  the  doctrinal 
standpoint  of  the  Apocalypse,  especially  as  regards  Christology 
and  Particularism. — The  doctrine  of  John  as  regards  Chiliasm. 
— The  distinction  between  the  first  and  second  resurrections. — 
The  indication  of  the  last  conflict,  compare  Ezek.  38. — Must 
we  regard  the  two  last  chapters  of  the  Apocalypse  as  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  finally  perfected  blessedness  of  heaven,  or  as  a  fur- 
ther delineation  of  the  condition  on  earth  during  the  millenni- 
um (compare  22,  5)  ? — What  is  the  sense  of  Eev.  22,  2  (com- 
pare 21,  24)?  Is,  in  the  Apocalyspe,  not  even  the  slightest 
prospect  opened  of  the  "  restoration  of  all  things?" — Force  and 
beauty  of  the  conclusion  of  the  Apocalypse. 


PART  IV. 

HIGHEK  UNITY. 


§  50. 
Harmony  of  the  Apostles  with  each  other. 

With  all  its  diversity  of  contents  and  form,  the  doctrinal 
teaching  of  the  different  Apostles  is  by  no  means  unconnected, 
much  less  mutually  conflicting.  Not  simply  in  the  fundamental 
conception,  but  also  in  the  presentation  of  the  principal  sub- 
jects, and  even  in  a  number  of  unimportant  matters,  there  is  to 
be  observed  an  unsought  and  unequivocal  agreement  between 
them.  Upon  no  single  vital  question  does  the  answer  of  the 
one  contradict  that  of  the  other ;  and  in  regard  to  the  way  of 
salvation,  it  is  evident  at  a  glance  that  each  of  them  exhibits 
the  Gospel  in  a  manner  different  from  the  others,  while  none  of 
them  teaches  another  Gospel. 

1.  At  the  close  of  our  investigation,  the  higher  unity  of  the 
different  Apostolic  systems  cannot  be  passed  over  in  silence. 
And  this  not  simply  because  the  thoughtful  mind  seeks  unity 
in  diversity,  but  also  on  account  of  the  practical  importance  of 
the  subject.  If  it  could  be  shown  that  the  teachings  of  the  dif- 
ferent Apostles  as  compared  with  each  other,  present  only  an 
agglomeration  of  very  different  opinions,  without  higher  unity 
(membra  disjecta),  not  only  would  the  highest  stamp  of  truth  be 
wanting,  but  the  doctrinal  use  of  the  New  Testament  writings, 
would  be  considerably  modified.  If  it  is  shown,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  we  have  the  right  to  speak  of  an  "organically  con- 
nected and  gradually  progressive  cycle  of  doctrinal  develop- 
ment" (SCHMID),  and  to  assert  that  the  germs  of  the  higher 
forms  of  teaching  are  already  contained  in  the  relatively  lower 


254  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

forms,  the  conclusion  as  to  the  truth  and  value  of  the  Apostolic 
testimony  is  manifest.  We  can,  however,  only  throw  out  hints 
on  this  important  subject.  Our  design  is  not  to  treat  of  Bibli- 
cal Dogmatics,  but  simply  to  furnish  an  introduction  to  the 
study  of  the  theology  of  the  New  Testament  writings  (compare 
§  1,  3  ;  §  3,  2). 

2.  It  is  probable  in  advance,  that  a  many-sided  harmony  be- 
tween the  doctrines  of  the  different  Apostles  would  exist. 
Doctrine  has  always  its  root  in  spiritual  life  ;  and  however  di- 
verse this  individuality  may  be,  all  are  partakers  together  of  the 
same  life.  They  themselves,  therefore,  do  not  conceive  of  either 
one  as  opposing  his  testimony  to  that  of  the  others.  One,  on 
the  contrary,  acknowledges  the  grace  which  has  been  granted  to 
another,  even  where  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion  upon  a 
particular  point  (Gal.  2,  7.  8).  Peter  testifies  in  favor  of  his 
fellow- workers  and  of  the  Epistles  of  Paul  (1  Peter  5,  12 ;  2 
Peter  3,  15.  16) ;  and  the  same  Paul  who  speaks  so  emphatically 
of  his  Gospel  declares  expressly  (1  Cor.  15,  11)  that  the  sub- 
stance of  that  which  was  declared  by  him,  was  no  other  than 
that  which  was  proclaimed  by  his  fellow-Apostles. 

8.  Above  all,  in  the  fundamental  conception  with  which  the 
Apostles  start,  the  harmony  is  not  to  be  denied.  They  all  re- 
gard man  as  sinful  and  guilty  before  God ;  recognize  the  Christ 
promised  of  old,  in  Jesus,  in  whom  they  all  see  the  only  Sa- 
viour of  lost  sinners ;  and  represent  faith  in  Him,  united  with 
true  conversion,  as  the  only  means  of  salvation.  According  to 
the  teaching  of  all,  they  who  thus  believe  form  a  circle,  mani- 
festly distinguished  from  the  unbelieving  world,  and  looking  in 
the  midst  of  all  conflict,  for  a  glorious  future  as  near  at  hand. 
All  finally  assume  or  declare,  that  after  the  Gospel  of  the  king- 
dom, no  higher  revelation  of  truth  and  grace  is  to  be  looked 
for  ;  and  see  in  the  grace  of  God  the  source,  in  Christ  the  cen- 
ter, and  in  the  Holy  Ghost  the  power  of  their  spiritual  life. 

4  An  equally  perfect  harmony  in  regard  to  each  particular 
article  of  doctrine  would,  however,  be  exceedingly  unnatural. 
In  his  type  of  doctrine  and  tropes,  each  Apostle  has  so  much  pe- 
culiar to  himself,  that  we  can  only  speak  of  a  relative  harmony, 
however  great  the  unity  in  things  essential.  In  order,  how- 
ever, to  comprehend  the  full  value  of  this  real  agreement,  it 


Harmony  of  the  Apostles  with  each  othw.  255 

must,  above  all,  not  be  forgotten,  that  not  one  of  the  Apostolic 
writers  thought  of  furnishing  a  compact  system  of  truths  or 
duties  ;  that  their  doctrine,  even  in  regard  to  things  most  im- 
portant, was,  as  a  rule,  presented  only  incidentally  and  as  occa- 
sion demanded  ;  that,  moreover,  the  silence  of  one  or  more  in 
regard  to  any  part  of  the  truth  is  by  no  means  the  same  as  a 
questioning  or  ignoring  of  the  same  ;  that  a  conceiving  of  the 
truth  from  a  particular  point  of  view,  is  by  no  means  a  nega- 
tion in  principle  of  another  point  of  view  ;  and  that,  in  a  word, 
no  cycle  of  ideas  is  here  so  systematically  complete  as  to  leave 
no  room  for  the  admission  of  other  ideas,  sprung  from  another, 
but  kindred  cycle  of  thought.  If  we  add  to  this,  that  the 
Apostles,  as  a  rule,  wrote  independently  of  each  other,  every 
point  of  agreement  which  manifests  itself,  must  be  regarded  as 
doubly  remarkable.  From  a  few  single  instances  we  will  en- 
deavor to  show  that  this  harmony  is  indeed  "  unsought  and 
unequivocal. 7' 

5.  The  conception  of  God  in  the  writings   of  Peter  and 
James,  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  manifests  much  more  of 
the  Old  Testament  coloring  than,  for  instance,  in  the  Gospel 
and  first  Epistle  of  John.     Yet,  in  the  first-named,  the  concep- 
tion of  God,  as  given  in  the  Gospels,  is  by  no  means  wanting  ; 
while  the  Apocalypse,  on  the  other  hand,  presents  descriptions 
of  the  majesty  of  God  which  may  be  compared  with  the  grand- 
est in  the  Old  Testament.     The  Trinitarian   distinction  made 
especially  by  Paul,  is  also  found  in  Peter,  and  even  in  John  is 
not  sought  in  vain  (1  Peter  1,  2 ;  Kev.  1,  4-6). 

6.  The  doctrine  of  man  and  of  sin  has  been  most  fully  treated 
by  Paul,  and  the  connection  between  the  sinfulness  of  man- 
kind and  the  fall  of  Adam  has  been  exclusively  set  forth  by 
him.     Yet  there  is  not  even  probable  ground  for  the  supposi- 
tion that  either  of  the  other  Apostles  favored  an  opposite  opin- 
ion.    According  to  all,  sin  is  disobedience  and  transgression  of 
the  law ;  according  to  all,  it  is  furthered  by  Satanic  influence, 
and   leads   to   temporal   and   everlasting   destruction.     While 
Paul  fixes  the  eye  more  on  the  sinful  principle,  James  regards 
rather  the  sinful  act ;  it  is  clear,  however,  that  the  latter  also 
regards  sinful  desire  as  anything  but  a  matter  of  indifference  ; 
while  by  all,   without  exception,  the  new  birth  of  the  indi- 


256  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

vidu&l  is  represented  as  the  indispensable  condition  of  entering 
into  the  kingdom  of  God. 

7.  In  respect  to  the  doctrine  concerning  Christ,  it  has  been 
often   said,  and   reiterated,  that  two   ways  of  regarding  the 
person  of  the  Lord  are  found  in  the  New  Testament.      Accord- 
ing to  one  view,  He  was  a  mere  man  ;  according  to  the  other, 
presented  particularly  by  Paul  and  John,  He   was  infinitely 
more  than  man.      An  attentive   comparison  of  the  doctrinal 
teachings  of  the  different  Apostles  will  make  manifest  the  injus- 
tice of  this  assertion.     In  the  estimation  of  none  of  the  Apostles 
is  the  Lord  either  a  mere  man,  or  man  only  in  appearance  ;  ac- 
cording to  the  teaching  of  all,  He  bears  a  name  and  claims  a 
homage  which,  without  idolatry,  cannot  be  rendered  to  any 
creature.     The  doctrine  of  the  Logos  is  to  be  found  exclusively 
in  John ;  but  what  does  he  testify  of  the  Logos  which  has  not 
been   already  affirmed   by  Paul   of  the  Son  of  God?     And 
what  do  both  teach  which  has  not,  at  least  in  substance,  been 
indicated  from  the  standpoint  of  Peter  ?     No  Apostle  thinks  of 
presenting  a  by  any  means  complete  enumeration  of  the  mira- 
cles of  our  Lord's  life ;  but  the  miraculous  beginning  of  life, 
related  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  is  so  evidently  pre-supposed 
in  the  Pauline  and  Johannean  doctrinal  system,  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  speak  of  a  denial   or  ignoring  of  this  wondrous 
event  from  this  standpoint.     Paul  and  Peter  harmonize  in  the 
most  beautiful  manner  with  the  Apocalypse  in  the  high  value 
attached  in  the  latter  to  the  Lord's  resurrection  from  the  grave ; 
and,  if  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  accordance 
with  his  whole  figurative  style,  lays  the  chief  stress  upon  the 
Lord's  ascension,  he  gives,  at  least  upon  one  occasion,  a  clear 
testimony  to  the  value  of  his  resurrection  (Heb.  13,  20.  21). 
And  if,  further,  the  historic  fact  of  this  ascension  is  mentioned 
only  by  a  part  of  the  witnesses,  all  agree,  nevertheless,  in  the 
fact  that  the  Glorified  One  stands  in  continued  personal  relation 
to  His  Church  on  earth,  and  soon  will  come  again  as  Judge. 

8.  In  what  the  Apostles  testify  in  regard  to  the  work  of 
redemption,  we  find  also  a  higher  agreement.     In  respect  to  the 
three-fold  office  of  Christ,  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  James  lays 
by  far  the  greatest  stress  upon  His  prophetic  word.     But  he 
represents  the  Teacher  as  also  the  Lord  of  Glory,  (James  2,  1), 


Harmony  of  the  Apostles  with  each  other.  257 

and  it  is  inconceivable  that  he,  who  certainly  was  not  less  than 
the  other  Apostles  penetrated  by  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament^ 
should  have  overlooked  the  atoning  power  of  the  Lord's  death. 
The  redeeming  and  sanctifying  power  of  the  death  of  Jesus 
is  spoken  off  with  equal  fervor  by  Peter,  Paul  and  John  ;  and, 
even  in  the  song  of  the  Lamb,  in  the  Apocalypse,  is  heard  no 
other  undertone  than  that  which  is  present  in  the  whole  Apos- 
tolic proclamation.  If,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the 
moral  value  of  our  Lord's  obedience  is  insisted  on,  while,  in 
the  Epistles  of  Paul,  it  is  rather  the  bearing  of  penal  evil, 
properly  so  called,  on  the  part  of  the  suffering  Christ,  upon 
which  the  emphasis  is  laid ;  the  one  conception  is  the  comple- 
ment of  the  other,  and  nothing  which  is  asserted  on  this  side 
is  therefore  on  that  side  ignored.  Entirely  peculiar  to  Peter 
is  the  mention  of  the  Lord's  appearing,  after  His  death,  in  the 
spirit-world ;  yet  there  are  not  wanting,  as  it  would  appear, 
traces  of  this  thought  also  in  the  Pauline  doctrine  (Eph.  4,  9). 
If  Paul  traces  back  more  clearly  than  any  other,  personal 
participation  in  the  salvation  which  is  in  Christ  to  the  sove- 
reign purpose  of  Grod,  he  meets  nowhere  less  contradiction  in 
this  respect  than  in  Peter  and  John  (1  Pet.  1,  2  ;  2,  9  ;  Kev.  13, 
7.  8).  According  to  all,  salvation  is  completed  only  through 
the  kingly  dominion  of  Christ,  which  is  described  by  none  as  a 
purely  moral  sway,  but  by  all  as  a  personal  reign,  and  by  most, 
as  at  the  same  time  a  priestly  as  well  as  kingly  rule,  redound- 
ing to  the  salvation  of  His  redeemed  ones,  and  destined  to 
triumph  over  all  opposition. 

9.  The  demand  for  faith  and  conversion  is,  in  the  preaching 
of  all  the  Apostles,  one  and  the  same,  and  if  the  latter  is, 
in  the  epistles,  comparatively  seldom  mentioned,  it  is  simply 
because  these  epistles  are  addressed,  as  a  rule,  to  those  who  are 
already  true  believers.  The  idea  and  the  life  of  faith  are  most 
fully  presented  by  the  Apostle  Paul;  along  with  this,  the 
representation  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  may  be  naturally 
placed,  and  when  the  innermost  life  of  the  communion  of  faith 
is  to  be  described,  John  does  not  fall  below  Paul.  The  con- 
nection between  faith  and  justification  is  certainly  somewhat 
differently  indicated  by  Paul  from  what  it  is  by  James  (comp. 
§31,  5).  "With  Paul,  faith,  because  it  is  justifying  faith,  is 


258  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

the  scarce  of  good  works  ;  with  James,  faith,  because  it  is  the 
source  of  good  works,  and  in  them  shows  itself  living  and 
active,  is  justifying  faith "  (KEEN).  From  this  it  does  not, 
however,  follow  that  one  is  in  conflict  with  the  other,  much 
less  that  it  is  impossible  to  find  between  both  conceptions, 
which  regard  the  matter  from  different  sides,  a  higher  unity. 
With  no  Apostle  is  sanctification  the  meritorious  ground  of 
justification ;  with  all,  is  it  the  sign  of  a  filial  relationship 
towards  God,  of  which  each  speaks  as  being  of  supreme 
importance. 

10.  Upon  a  superficial  observation  it  might  appear  as  though 
the  Apostles  differed  considerably  in  their  eschatology ;  and 
even  as  though  Paul  did  not  always  remain  consistent  with 
himself  in  this  respect.     More  accurate  examination,  however, 
leads  to  a  result  more  favorable,  and  shows  that  the   more 
realistic  conception  of  Paul  differs  from  the  more  spiritual  one 
of  John   not  in  substance  and  fundamental  conception,  but 
only  in  measure  and  degree.     According  to  all  the  Apostles 
who  express  themselves  particularly  on  this  point,  the  blessed- 
ness of  believers,  beginning  to  be  enjoyed  immediately  after 
death,  is  completed  only  at  the  second  coming  of  the  Lord ; 
this  coming  will  be  an  unexpected,  personal,  glorious  one,  and 
be  followed  by  an  absolutely  universal  and  endless  reward. 
All  look  for  a  resurrection  of  the  body,  yet  not  until  the  end 
of  the  ages ;  all  expect  a  world-judgment,  held  by  the  same 
Judge  and  determined  by  the  same  standard.     The  amazing 
prospect  opened  in  the  Apocalypse  is  not  without  a  point  of 
connection  with  what  has  been  previously  spoken  (§  49,  8) ; 
the  judgments  there  predicted,  are  indeed  terrible  and  yet  not 
exhibited  in  conflict  with  that  which  Peter  and  Paul  especially 
lead  us  to  expect  in  "the  last  troublous  times." 

11.  If  in  anything  all  the  Apostles  agree,  it  is  in  the  intimate 
connection  between  doctrine  and  life  which  we  find  in  them  all. 
It  is  true,  this  is  especially  seen  in  John  (§  44,  4),  who  signifi- 
cantly speaks  of  "  doing  the  truth  ;"  (1  John  1,  6)  but  the  re- 
mark applies  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  to  all.     "In  the  Chris- 
tianity of  the  Apostles,  doctrine  is  transformed  into  morals  and 
morals  lead  back  in  turn  to  doctrine.     Christian  morality  is 
distinctively  Christian  doctrine  applied  to  the  life :  it  is  the  su- 


Harmony  of  the  Apostles  with  each  other.  259 

pernatural  in  conduct  corresponding  to  the  supernatural  in  the 
faith  :  it  is  the  extraordinary  in  human  life  evoked  by  the  extra- 
ordinary dispensations  of  the  love  of  God,  miracles  of  grace 
producing  miracles  of  charity  "  (BONIFAS).  "  And  just  in  this  is 
manifested  the  practical  unity  of  the  Apostolic  doctrine,  even 
when  it  has  proceeded  from  very  different  points.  James,  for 
example,  does  not  stand  in  exactly  the  same  relation  to  the 
law  as  Paul ;  nevertheless,  we  are  surprised  in  the  former  by 
the  remark  that  the  Gospel  is  the  perfect  law  of  liberty  (James 
1,  25) ;  while  the  latter  describes  the  Gospel  as  the  law  (Kom. 
8,  2)  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus ;  and  both,  the  one 
in  the  name  of  liberty,  the  other  of  authority,  describe  the 
same  life  as  peculiar,  as  the  grace  which  has  been  received  is 
unmerited  and  inestimable.  In  the  conception  of  John,  the 
central  point  falls  within  the  present  life ;  in  that  of  Peter, 
within  the  future.  Yet  the  latter  points  to  a  joy  of  hope  even 
here,  which  supports  amidst  all  sufferings  (1  Peter  1,  8) ;  and 
the  former  glories  in  the  hope  of  a  future,  in  comparison  with 
which  the  present  is  nothing  (1  John  3,  2).  The  Pauline 
trilogy — u  faith,  hope,  love" — is  not  precisely  co-extensive  with 
the  Johannean — "light,  love,  life;"  and  yet  a  parallel  may 
easily  be  drawn  between  them,  and  in  both  the  differently 
modified  fruit  springs  from  the  same  soil. 

12.  The  copiousness  of  the  material  precludes  even  the 
endeavor  after  completeness.  The  instances  given  are  pre- 
sented, not  with  the  view  of  rendering  further  investigation 
unnecessary,  but  of  stimulating  to  it.  At  every  new  step  it 
appears  more  and  more  clear,  that  the  whole  conception  of  the 
Apostolic  Epistles  as  having  been  written  with  the  distinct 
purpose  (Tendenzschrifteri)  of  combating  or  reconciling  hostile 
schools,  belongs  not  to  the  domain  of  history,  but  of  romance. 

The  subject  of  this  section  is  passed  over  in  silence  by 
SCHMID,  REUSS,  SCHOLTEN,  and  others.  It  is  treated  of,  on 
the  other  hand,  by  MESSNER,  I  c.,  p.  383-421 ;  LECHLER,  I  c., 
p.  232-271 ;  BONIFAS,  I  c.,  p.  201-282  ;  KOSTLIN  in  the  treatise 
before  referred  to  (§1)  A  remarkable  demonstration  of  the 
harmony  of  the  Apostolic  writers  in  regard  to  the  death  of  the 
Lord  is  that  of  Dr.  J.  TIDEMAN,  Theol.  Studien,  Amst  1863, 
bl.  79-126. 


260  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

Questions  for  consideration. — The  true  conception  of  the  har- 
mony of  the  Apostolic  doctrine. — Fuller  comparison  of  the 
doctrine  of  Paul  with  that  of  James,  Peter,  John. — Comparison 
of  the  doctrine  of  John  with  that  of  his  predecessors. — What 
value  is  to  be  attached  to  presentations  of  doctrine  which  are 
made  by  only  one,  or  some,  of  the  Apostles  ? — Historico-crit- 
ical  significance  of  the  result  obtained. 

§  51. 
Harmony  of  the  Apostles  ivith  the  Lord. 

The  remarkable  unity  of  the  Apostolic  teaching  rests  his- 
torico-psychologically  on  their  personal  and  vital  communion 
with  Him  who  called  them,  formed  them,  and  by  one  Spirit 
led  them  into  all  truth.  Their  doctrine  contains  the  spiritual 
and  normal  development  of  the  fruitful  germ  found  in  his  utter- 
ances, and  stands  related  to  His  as  the  stream  to  the  fountain. 
His  doctrine  is  unquestionably  developed  in  theirs  in  a  many- 
sided  manner  ;  the  influence  also  of  many  circumstances  within 
and  without  their  own  minds,  upon  the  contents  and  form  of 
their  preaching,  is  by  no  means  to  be  underrated.  But  with  all 
this  development,  the  original  fundamental  character  remains ; 
with  all  this  difference,  the  higher  unity  may  be  recognized ; 
and  no  single  instance  occurs  in  which,  in  accepting  .their 
word,  it  is  necessary  to  reject  that  of  the  Master,  or  vice  versa. 

1.  The  harmony  which  is  found  in  so  many  diverse  persons, 
and  in  so  many  writings  independent  of  each  other  in  origin,  and 
separated  by  so  many  years,  is  a  phenomenon  so  remarkable, 
that  we  find  no  counterpart  to  it  in  the  history  of  mankind  and 
of  religion.     The  question  as  to  the  cause  of  this  phenomenon 
is  answered  by  pointing  to  the  person  and  work  of  the  Lord  ; 
and  this  answer  is  at  the  same  time,  a  reverential  homage  to 
Him  who  makes  such  disciples,  and  unites  them  in  such  a 
manner. 

2.  The  doctrine  which  is  to  awaken  life  can  only  be  born  of 
life.     Thus  the  Apostolic  teaching  has  its  root  in  the  communion 


Harmony  of  the  Apostles  with  the  Lord.  261 

of  all  with  Him  who  called  them  to  be  His  witnesses,  and  bap- 
tized them  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  So  strong  is  the  impression  of 
His  appearing  that  they  cannot  possibly  cease  to  speak  of  it  (Acts 
4,  20) ;  so  mighty  does  His  Spirit  operate  in  their  hearts  that 
they  receive,  with  varying  clearness  and  depth,  essentially  the 
same  impression  of  His  person  and  work,  and  independently 
reproduce  it.  The  Spirit  leads  them  forward  in  the  path  of 
a  divinely  proposed  development,  but  at  the  same  time  back  to 
the  words  of  the  Lord  himself  (John  16,  15). 

3.  All  the  Apostles  do  not  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  the 
person  and  work  of  the  Lord.     The  difference  is  at  once  manifest 
in  this  respect  between  Paul  and  his  fellow-witnesses;  but  even 
these  latter  are  stars  of  different  magnitude^,  placed  at  different 
distances  from  the  central  sun.     James  attaches  himself  more 
to  the  moral,  John  to  the  mystical  side  of  the  Lord's  teaching  ; 
and,  while  John  evidently  penetrates  most  deeply  into  the  spirit 
of  the  Master's  own  testimony,  we  find  again  in  Peter  the  living 
reminiscence  not  so  mnch  of  His  words  as  of  His  deeds  and 
sufferings.      With  Paul  it  is  less  the  teaching,  suffering,  or 
dying  Christ,  than  the  glorified  one,  with  whom  he  feels  himself 
most  intimately  united,  and  who,  by  continued  revelation,  gives 
him  to  see  ever  new  light  (comp.  §  35,  5  ;  §  38,  3).      But  yet 
the  answer  of  all  to  the  question  as  to  the  last  ground  of  their 
testimony  would  have  been  a  unanimous  reference  of  the  in- 
quirer to  the  word,  first  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  then,  above 
all,  of  the  Lord,  and  to  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by 
which   they  were  led  gradually  to  the  full  knowledge  of  the 
whole  truth. 

4.  That  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  especially  of  Paul  and 
John,  is  more  full  than  that  of  the  Lord,  it  is  scarcely  necessary 
to  observe.     It  by  no  means  follows  from  this,  however,  that  it 
equals,  or  surpasses,  His  doctrine  in  power.     On  the  contrary, 
it  can  be  shown  that  the  Apostolic  testimony  concerning  salva- 
tion contains  nothing  which  has  not  been  in  substance  indicated 
at  least  by  Him,  if  not  actually  expressed.     It  lay  in  the  na- 
ture of  the  case,  that  the  full  truth  concerning  the  exalted  dig- 
nity of  His  person,  the  power  of  His  death,  and  the  brightness 
of  His  glorification,  could  only  be  displayed  after  the  close  of 
His  earthly  manifestation.     So  much  the  more  remarkable  is  it, 


262  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

that  no  Apostle  expresses  anything  respecting  it  which  cannot 
be  justified  by  an  appeal  either  to  the  letter  or  the  spirit  of  the 
Lord's  own  words.  As  the  oak  is  contained  in  the  acorn,  so 
does  the  Apostolic  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  lie  in  words  like 
Matt  20,  28 ;  26,  28 ;  and  their  whole  eschatology  in  Matth. 
Chh.  24  and  25.  What  in  His  word  had  for  wise  reasons,  not 
yet  been  expressed  (John  16,  12),  His  Spirit  gave  them  later  to 
understand;  and  in  what  this  Spirit  testifies,  His  own  word, 
again,  is  inwardly  revealed  and  explained. 

5.  Without  doubt,  the  Apostolic  teaching  includes  more  than 
the  expansion  and  development  of  the  doctrine  proclaimed  by 
Jesus.     The  stream  which  widens  in  its  progress  from  the  foun- 
tain head,  and  hastens  forward  in  its  course  with  increasing 
depth  and  breadth,  receives  into  its  bosom  other  tributaries. 
The  individuality  of  the  Apostles,  their  greater  or  less  degree 
of  culture  in  the  school  of  Scripture  and  of  science,  the  influ- 
ence of  current  thought,  of  circumstances,  and  of  personal  ex- 
periences, all  these  are  factors  which  must  be  taken  into  account 
in  answering  the  question,  how  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles  has, 
in  point  of  contents  and  form,  become  what  it  is.     But  yet,  after 
making  allowance  for  all  this,  the  preponderating  influence  of 
the  Lord's  own  word  and  Spirit  upon  their  testimony  is  not 
overshadowed,  but  only  more  fully  defined,  and  all  the  beams, 
divergent  in  direction,  varying  in  color  and  intensity,  radiate 
unceasingly  from  the  same  center. 

6.  The  harmony   between  the  doctrine    of  Jesus  and  the 
Apostles — (neither  dead  uniformity  nor  irreconcilable  antago- 
nism)— is  not  only  a  striking  proof  of  the  justice  of  the  words, 
"He  that  heareth  you,  heareth  me"  (Luke  10,  16);  but  is  also 
in   our  day  of  great  importance,  in   opposition   to  the   one- 
sidedness  of  those  who  would  oppose  the  testimony  of  the  one 
to  that  of  the  other,  and  would  compel  us  to  choose  between 
the  religion  of  the  amiable  Rabbi,  and  the  wisdom  of  a  few 
well-meaning  but  narrow-minded  zealots,  who  stand  infinitely 
beneath  him.     Where  the  alternative  so  manifestly  rests  upon 
a  fiction,  a  decision  may  be  spared  without  loss.     The  inner 
unity  of  the  Apostolic  testimony  with  that  of  the  Master  is  a 
fact  which  cannot  be  denied  ;  and  this  fact  is  of  no  small  signifi- 
cance both  for  Christian  faith  and  Christian  science.     It  proves 


Harmony  of  the  Lord  and  the  Apostles  with  the  Scriptures.    263 

that  the  Christian  church  has  not  without  reason  conceded  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles  an  entirely  unique  position,  above 
that  of  all  others,  and  not  without  good  cause,  ever  afresh  re- 
turns to  it.  "  Only  the  whole  (body)  is  also  the  sound  (body), 
and  each  of  the  Apostolic  doctrinal  systems  is  given  to  Chris- 
tianity as  a  pattern,  and  for  its  improvement"  (LECHLER), 
namely,  in  its  connection  with  the  living  totality. 

Comp.  on  the  inner  unity  of  the  Apostolic  doctrine,  SCHAFF, 
I  c.,  I.  p.  640  ff.  ;  our  "  Christology  of  the  N.  71,"  bL  447-480. 
On  the  wisdom  of  Jesus,  in  the  training  of  his  Apostles,  our 
"  Life  of  Jesus  "  II.,  bL  213,  and  the  literature  there  cited. 

Questions  for  consideration. — Connection  between  the  doctrine 
and  life,  between  the  progressive  enlightenment  of  the  Apostles 
and  their  increasing  holiness. — Sense,  force,  and  fulfillment  of 
the  promise,  John  16,  12-15. — The  greater  or  lesser  differences 
between  the  doctrine  of  the  disciples  and  that  of  the  Master. — 
The  Apostolic  testimony  the  expression  of  a  sanctified  individ- 
uality.— The  harmony  of  the  disciples  with  the  Lord,  in  its 
historical,  doctrinal,  and  practical  significance. 

§52. 

Harmony  of  the  Lord  and  the  Apostles  with  the  Scriptures  of  the 

Old  Testament. 

As  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  has  its  root  in  that  of  Jesus, 
so  the  teaching  both  of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  is  rooted  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  are  regarded  by 
all  from  essentially  the  same  point  of  view.  Between  the 
theology  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  and  that  of 
the  New  the  distinction  is  undoubtedly  as  great  as  it  is  impor- 
tant ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  aside  from  the  difference  of  persons 
and  times,  the  higher  unity  in  regard  to  the  way  of  salvation 
is  unmistakable,  and  both  one  organic  whole,  the  result  of  more 
than  human  wisdom. 

1.  The  contemplation  of  the  theology  of  the  Apostles  (Part 
III.)  leads  us  back  not  merely  to  that  of  the  Lord  (Part  IL), 


264  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

but  also  to  the  Old  Testament  foundation  on  which  the  doctri- 
nal structure  of  both  rests.  What  was  said  at  the  outset  as  to 
the  way  and  manner  in  which  the  way  was  prepared  for  the 
Gospel  of  the  kingdom  by  Mosaism,  Prophetism,  and  Judaism 
(§  4^6),  becomes  now  at  the  close  of  our  examination  not  only 
illustrated  but  confirmed,  and  furnishes  us  at  the  same  time 
with  the  last  key  to  the  phenomenon  observed  in  §§  50,  51. 

2.  In  deriving  the  unity  between  the  teacning  of  the  Lord 
and  that  of  the  Apostles  from  the  relation  of  both  to  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  Testament,  we  do  not  mean  by  any 'means  to 
assert  that  these  Scriptures  were  by  all  explained  and  cited  in 
the  same  way.     The  use  of  Scripture  by  the  Evangelists  and 
Apostles  of  the  New  Testament  is  different,  and  affords  in  its 
peculiarity  important  material  for  comparative  criticism.     Still 
the  Apostles  in  their  view  of  Scripture  agree  so  entirely  not 
only  with  each  other  but  with  the  Lord,  that  their  testimony 
concerning  the  way  of  salvation  may  be  styled  in  a  certain  re- 
spect only  the  continuation,  exposition,  and  confirmation  of  the 
word  of  Moses  and  the  prophets.     According  to  all,  the  Scrip- 
ture of  the  Old  Testament  is  the  documentary  record  of  a  spe- 
cial and  Divine  revelation  of  redemption ;  the  Messianic  expec- 
tation, therein  recorded,  the  expression  of  the  deepest  want  of 
man ;  and  the  way  of  salvation  now  fully  revealed  that  which 
was  already  indicated  initially  under  the  Old  Covenant.     Allu- 
sion or  appeal  to  the  prophetic  word  occupies  also  in  the  dis- 
course of  all  a  more  or  less  important  place,  and  neither  the 
Apostle  of  Hebraistic  nor  of  Hellenistic  culture  severs  the  bond 
which  unites  his  whole  conception  of  the  way  of  salvation  with 
that  of  earlier  ages. 

3.  In  order  to  fathom,  in  its  whole  extent,  the  influence  of  the 
Old  Testament  upon  the  teaching  of  the  Lord  and  His  Apostles, 
it  is  not  sufficient  to  consider  single  peculiarities  (for  instance, 
the  connection  of  the  theory  of  sacrifices  with  the  evangelical 
doctrine  of  the  atonement),  but  we  must  rise  to  the  main  and 
dominant  ideas  which  are  constantly  prominent  in  both  parts  of 
the  Scriptures.     For  the  common  basis  of  ideas,  e.  g.,  of  life  and 
death,  sin  and  grace,  light  and  darkness,  calling  and  election, 
sonship  and  inheritance,  righteousness  and  truth,  which  we  find 
not  less  in  the  teaching  of  Christ  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels 


Harmony  of  the  Lord  and  the  Apostles  with  the  Scriptures.  265 

than  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  in  Peter  and  James  not  less  than  in 
Paul  and  John,  lies  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  they  are  un- 
doubtedly developed,  completed,  and  applied  as  never  before ; 
but  in  order  to  understand  the  original  sense,  one  must  ever 
trace  them  back  to  the  pre-Christian  period.  Even  John  (see, 
for  example,  John  19,  24.  36.  37),  has  no  more  outgrown  his 
reverence  for  ancient  prophecy  than  Peter ;  and  Paul,  for  whom 
the  old  had  passed  away,  shows,  with  manifest  predilection  for 
Old  Testament  examples,  that  Abraham  and  David  were  justi- 
fied by  a  method  essentially  the  same  as  believers  of  the  New 
Testament  (Kom.  ch.  4).  The  whole  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
especially  is  one  continued  proof  that  Christianity  is  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  highest  aspirations  of  Hebraism  and  Judaism ;  and 
it  is  impossible  to  leave  the  Apocalypse  without  observing  how 
the  circle  of  Scripture  at  the  end  manifestly  returns  to  its  point 
of  commencement. 

4.  No  proof  of  the  harmony  between  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New  is  of  any  value  unless  it  proceeds  from  the  uncon- 
ditional acknowledgment  of  the  diversity  which  exists  between 
them.     The  "  concordabit  Scriptura  "  is  inconceivable,  unless  the 
"distingue  tempora^  has  obtained  its  due  observance.     On  the 
other  hand,  however,  every  view  is  one-sided  which  has  regard 
only  to  the  difference,  without  discovering  beneath  and  beyond 
this  the  higher  unity.     "  Not  the  contents  but  the  form,  not 
the  certainty  but  the  distinctness ;  it  is  this  in  which  the  pro- 
phetic and  Apostolic  testimonies  of  salvation  differ  from  each 
other.     The  whole  theology  of  the  New  Testament  is  in  its 
deepest  foundation  an  Israelite  theology." 

5.  A  harmony  between   such   different  men   and  writings, 
separated  from  each  other  by  centuries,  such  as  we  here  be- 
hold, appears  inexplicable,  unless  we  assume  that  the  funda- 
mental thought,  of  which  the  Old  Testament  may  be  termed 
the  announcement,  and  the  New  the  fulfilment,  is  the  fruit 
of  a  special  Divine  revelation  of  salvation,  gradually  made 
known  by  its  interpreters  in  such  a  way  that  later  revelations 
did  not  contradict  the  earlier  ones,  but  rather  explained  and  com- 
pleted them.    The  inner  unity  of  Scripture  is  the  great  pi'oof  that 
we  have  here  to  do  with  something  very  different  from  sporadic 

17 


266  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament 

remains  of  Jewish  and  Christian  literature.  A,  whole,  like 
this,  is  not  the  product  of  human  reflection  and  research,  but  is 
the  gradually  developed  fruit  of  a  higher  guidance.  And  the 
now  completed  structure  of  the  theology  of  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures,  both  in  itself,  and  in  its  connection  with  that  of  the 
Old  Testament,  deserves  to  bear  the  inscription,  "  He  who  hath 
built  all  this  is  God."  The  fuller  amplification  and  practical 
application  of  this  thought  does  not  belong,  however,  to  the 
purely  historic  domain,  the  limit  of  which  is  here  reached. 

Comp.  FOCKENS,  "  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament 
according  to  Jesus  and  his  Apostles"  Amst.  1848  ;  SEPP,  "  The 
Doctrine  of  the  New  Testament  concerning  the  Holy  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  Testament"  Amst.  1849;  P.  MOUNIER,  "Disq.  de  locisnon- 
nullis  Evang.  in  quibus  V.  T.  libri  a  Jesu  laudanter"  Amst.  1856  ; 
the  literature  cited,  in  §  14,  8  ;  our  "  Christol"  I,  bl.  37  and  fol- 
lowing ;  II,  bl.  480-485. 

Questions  for  consideration. — Comparison  of  the  different  ways 
in  which  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  are  used  and  ex- 
plained by  the  writers  of  the  New. — History  of  the  exaggera- 
tion and  denial  by  theologians,  of  the  higher  unity  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments.— -Apologetic  value  of  the  result  obtained. 
—The  theology  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  in  its  signifi- 
cance and  value  above  every  other, 


CORRIGENDA. 


The  reader  is  requested  to  correct  the  following  errata  : 

Page  46, 

from  bottom,  line  14,     for 

Acts     read      Matt. 

"     50, 

"      top, 

1, 

33 

32. 

"     52, 

u         i 

"      9       " 

36 

21. 

u      u 

u         t 

«  10!    " 

54 

53. 

'     56, 

i          u    15)      u 

8 

18. 

i      u 

u         i 

1    17,      " 

54 

53. 

;  57, 

ic            i             ii     18'        it 

27 

26. 

u            i 

'    24, 

15 

16. 

I        II 

tt            i 

u     it        u 

5 

2. 

II        II 

"  bottom,     "      9,    for 

'  would  have 

no  blessing,'  read  * 

have  asked,  not  for  a  blessing,  but  for  a  crown.' 

«     60, 

from  bottom,  line  13,     for 

8,  18;  8,  10 

read  8,  8.  10.  18. 

"     63, 

"      top, 

It  17)    II 

21 

u            23. 

II           U 

n         i 

"    23,      " 

41 

"             44. 

II        11 

u          t          ii    33j      u 

5 

"              4. 

"     64, 

it         i 

'    21,      " 

6 

"              5. 

"     72, 

t          i 

'      6,      " 

Acts  18,  18 

"      Matt.  18,  19. 

'     91, 

1   bottom, 

13,      " 

24 

"            23. 

•.    94, 

'         * 

'    12,      " 

24 

"            25. 

'    95, 

'         ' 

*      3,      " 

45 

"            47. 

1  100, 

'      top, 

2,       " 

21 

"            20. 

1  102, 

'    bottom, 

11,       « 

6 

"              5. 

'  103, 

"      top, 

1,      " 

9-16 

"         18  sqq. 

1  110, 

"    bottom 

15,      « 

14,  17 

"         14.  17. 

I       II 

u        ii 

3,       » 

14 

"         13.  14. 

"  111, 

"     top, 

6,      " 

10,  19 

"        19,  10. 

"  131, 

u        it 

20,      " 

1  Pet.  19 

"         1  Pet.  3,  19 

"  136, 

n        u         t 

i      4;       u 

Lord 

God. 

should 


